PDA

View Full Version : Discussion How does the Flood make sense?



CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 02:50 PM
I've just been wondering...how does the Flood make any sense at all?

Like, here are a few things:

Rainbows- God sent the rainbow as a promise that he would never flood the earth again right? Were there no rainbows before then? :confused

Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...

Fish- If there was a huge flood, wouldn't that have effectively mixed all the freshwater and saltwater? And, if i remember correctly from AP biology two years ago...very few saltwater fish can survive in freshwater, and very few freshwater fish can survive in saltwater. How did any fish survive?

Speaking of AP Biology...what about fruit flies? I remember those things have freaking short life spans (They're adults after about 5 hours), but they breed like nobody's business. Wouldn't the ark have been completely overrun?

Then the animals.. How were 2 of every kind fit inside? Isn't that impossible considering how many animals there are?

I'm just curious is all...i'm a very curious guy.

Also...something else sort of not related to the flood:

In the Garden of Eden everything ate plants right? Well...what about Venus fly traps? O.O

lendtay
Aug 18th 2008, 03:36 PM
I don't know how many varieties of animals there were back then. It would have been difficult to build an ark large enough to accommodate two of every kind of animal. The ark would have been a project that took many years to complete, and many people would have worked on this. I've heard that the ark is somewhere in the world today, buried on a mountain somewhere. Perhaps Noah did his best to get most species of animals on there.

Frances
Aug 18th 2008, 05:17 PM
Let's start from a different perspective. If there had never been a worldwide flood how do you account for the fossils of sea creatures on top of present day mountains?

CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 05:41 PM
I have no idea. Science suggest plate tectonics, arguing that they weren't originally mountains or something, but i don't know much about that. The flood makes sense for some things, but while answering some questions, it raises others. Like the ones i asked, for example.

I mean...I'm a devout christian, but...so many things are starting to lead me to believe that i shouldn't take the book of genesis literally...

Moxie
Aug 18th 2008, 07:22 PM
I mean...I'm a devout christian, but...so many things are starting to lead me to believe that i shouldn't take the book of genesis literally...[/quote]

That's sounds scary.....When I begin to question God or the validity of the Bible I stop and think "Where's Satan?" He is always at work and loves it when we questions such things. Some questions we will never know the answers...until we meet Him in heaven. As for myself, I can't wait......I have so many.

Moxie
Aug 18th 2008, 07:24 PM
I mean...I'm a devout christian, but...so many things are starting to lead me to believe that i shouldn't take the book of genesis literally...

That's sounds scary.....When I begin to question God or the validity of the Bible I stop and think "Where's Satan?" He is always at work and loves it when we questions such things. Some questions we will never know the answers...until we meet Him in heaven. As for myself, I can't wait......I have so many

CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 07:28 PM
*sigh*

The bible doesn't say to believe without questioning.

Hos 4:6 (NIV) My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

Prov 19:2 (NIV) It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.

Rom 10:2 (NIV) For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

If you don't have an answer you could at least say so...

It's just that everything else in the Bible makes sense. But so many things in Genesis leave me bewildered. Creation? I can more or less understand that, and I'm not a gap theorist or one of the people that thinks a day means a thousand years or something. It's just certain little things bug me. Like, the things i asked in my post.

BrckBrln
Aug 18th 2008, 07:31 PM
*sigh*

The bible doesn't say to believe without questioning.

Hos 4:6 (NIV) My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

Prov 19:2 (NIV) It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.

Rom 10:2 (NIV) For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

If you don't have an answer you could at least say so...

But if the Bible says something then we are to believe it even if we don't know how it happened or don't have all the details.

CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 07:34 PM
But if the Bible says something then we are to believe it even if we don't know how it happened or don't have all the details.

Yeah I know..but...aren't those things perplexing to you too? How on earth could land animals migrate across oceans?

BrckBrln
Aug 18th 2008, 07:39 PM
Yeah I know..but...aren't those things perplexing to you too? How on earth could land animals migrate across oceans?

Well I'm not the kinda guy you should be asking these questions to. :)

I am not one that's well read in this area so I don't really know anything except that a flood happened. :cool:

ServantofTruth
Aug 18th 2008, 08:10 PM
I agree with the posts above. I think this is the second time i have replied to a post of yours questioning the Word of God/ the bible?

If every scientist on this earth said, that Genesis in it's entirity was unlikely or wrong - it would not interest me in the least.

I am a Christian - I believe the bible.

If others want to speculate beyond what the bible actually says, or what happened before/ after the food in detail - i believe they are wasting valuable time and effort. God reveals what he wants us to know and to want to know more that God has kept hidden is sin.

I do hope you can except God's Will through scripture soon and avoid speculating on what God has decided to hide from humans. SofTy.

Paul_born_again
Aug 18th 2008, 08:14 PM
Rainbows- God sent the rainbow as a promise that he would never flood the earth again right? Were there no rainbows before then? :confused

My memory might be wrong, but I don't believe it says anywhere in the Bible that there were no rainbows before the flood. God uses the rainbow as a symbol of a reminder of the flood. It doesn't say it was the first one. Bread is a symbol of Passover. Was there no bread before Passover?



Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...

Many animals probably crossed by land bridges. Most people (including evolutionists) agree that animals and people crossed the Bering Straits by lands bridges from Asia to the Americas.

Koala may only prefer to eat eucalyptus trees now, but there is no reason to assume that they couldn't have adapted.

More info here: How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? - answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread)



Fish- If there was a huge flood, wouldn't that have effectively mixed all the freshwater and saltwater? And, if i remember correctly from AP biology two years ago...very few saltwater fish can survive in freshwater, and very few freshwater fish can survive in saltwater. How did any fish survive?

Most probably didn't survive. Small numbers that survived in pockets of salt/fresh water is enough to repopulate afterwards. See here for more: How Did Fish Survive Noah’s Flood? - answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/feedback26-feb-2001.asp)



Speaking of AP Biology...what about fruit flies? I remember those things have freaking short life spans (They're adults after about 5 hours), but they breed like nobody's business. Wouldn't the ark have been completely overrun?

Yeah, probably very yucky :P



Then the animals.. How were 2 of every kind fit inside? Isn't that impossible considering how many animals there are?

How many animals are there?

Noah only needed 2 dogs, not every breed of dog. Even dog breeders today tell us that they can reproduce ever breed of dog alive today, starting with only 2 dogs and about 20 generations of time.

So how many kinds of animals are there?
Many scientists place that number between a few thousand to about 15,000. The Ark could easily accommodate that payload. See here for details on the Ark's dimensions: worldwideflood.com (http://www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm)

Here's some sites you may find interesting:

answersingenesis.org - Noah’s Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp)
worldwideflood.com (http://www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm)
www.creationwiki.org - Global flood (http://www.creationwiki.org/Global_flood)

Elena
Aug 18th 2008, 09:03 PM
I have no idea. Science suggest plate tectonics, arguing that they weren't originally mountains or something, but i don't know much about that.

That could happen - if two tectonic plates slide into each other, they create mountains by pushing up the rock which would have originally been underwater.

I also saw a documentary once (it wasn't specifically Christian) about the flood, and they suspect that it wasn't the entire world that flooded - just a large section over near the Black Sea, which was where most of the population was concentrated at that time. So in that sense it did flood their "world" because it was the extent of the earth that was discovered at that point, but not the entire surface of the earth.

I wouldn't mind if that was the case, but I'd believe that God could flood the entire world if he wanted to, and found ways to keep the animals and such alive (either on Noah's ark or other ways).

th1bill
Aug 18th 2008, 09:11 PM
*sigh*

The bible doesn't say to believe without questioning.


Rom 10:2 (NIV) For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.


Your highlighted quote from the NIV puts everything into context. They perish because they lack the knowledge they should have gained from studying God's Word. That and the verse escapes at the moment but Jesus taught us to believe as a small child. When I raised my children I fathered them and in doing so I remained close to them until they began their adult lives. When I would tell them something they believed it because I was their dad. If God is, to you, abba, father which translates dad, father, why would you doubt? God does not lie but scientists do.

Ron Brown
Aug 18th 2008, 09:13 PM
You only need 2 "kinds" of every animal to breed all the varieties of shapes, sizes, and colors, in that given species. The arc was plenty big enough, and them some, to house 2 of every "kind" of animal. Sea creatures live in the water, so a flood would not harm them. Then there is the supernatural sparing of some of the species of animals by God himself to factor in. God has the power to do what he wants, when he wants, and God is not limited to the Earthly laws of physics that we humans are limited to. God created the laws of physics we observe in the Universe after all. After the flood animals migrated accross the land bridges to other countries around the globe, that were not covered by water 1000's of years ago. After they were covered by water, the land animals were trapped in the locations they migrated to shortly after the flood.

Paul_born_again
Aug 18th 2008, 09:15 PM
I also saw a documentary once (it wasn't specifically Christian) about the flood, and they suspect that it wasn't the entire world that flooded - just a large section over near the Black Sea, which was where most of the population was concentrated at that time. So in that sense it did flood their "world" because it was the extent of the earth that was discovered at that point, but not the entire surface of the earth.

Genesis 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

- If the flood was local, than why did God tell Noah to build an ark instead of just telling him to move to a different area?

- If the flood was local, than why did God tell Noah to take animals on the ark? If the flood was local, than there would have still been animals in other parts of the world and they would not become extinct.

- If the flood was local, than how could the flood waters cover the tops of mountains (Genesis 7:20), and yet other areas remain dry?


(i'm not picking on you Elena, sorry if it sounds that way :) ... just general questions for those who believe the Flood was local)


God promised to never again destroy the entire Earth with a flood again:

Genesis 9:11 - And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Genesis 9:15 - And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

- If it was a local flood, than God is a liar, because there have been countless local floods since then.


All the scriptural evidence points to a world-wide flood, which is backed up by science when one chooses to look at, and seriously consider the scientific evidence of a it being world-wide.

CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 09:23 PM
You only need 2 "kinds" of every animal to breed all the varieties of shapes, sizes, and colors, in that given species. The arc was plenty big enough, and them some, to house 2 of every "kind" of animal. Sea creatures live in the water, so a flood would not harm them. Then there is the supernatural sparing of some of the species of animals by God himself to factor in. God has the power to do what he wants, when he wants, and God is not limited to the Earthly laws of physics that we humans are limited to. God created the laws of physics we observe in the Universe after all. After the flood animals migrated accross the land bridges to other countries around the globe, that were not covered by water 1000's of years ago. After they were covered by water, the land animals were trapped in the locations they migrated to shortly after the flood.

Well, the sea creatures would have been harmed because of the things mentioned earlier, but that was addressed.

And while God isn't limited to laws of physics, that has nothing to do with the questions I asked. The questions I asked were regarding natural things, like an overpopulation of flies in the ark, the animal to boat space ratio, and how certain animals got to their respective habitats after the flood. Certainly, God could have stopped flies from breeding while in the ark, made the ark like a clown car that could have fit an infinite amount of animals in it, and teleported all the animals to their respective habitats after the flood, but the bible makes no mention of that, and I was wondering if there was a more natural explanation.

Sold Out
Aug 18th 2008, 09:28 PM
I've just been wondering...how does the Flood make any sense at all?

Like, here are a few things:



Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...



Well, I might sound like a complete dufus here....but I was thinking I heard somewhere that at one time all the land masses were together, and then eventually broke apart? Could that explain the migration? Again...I'm just speculating.

CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 09:34 PM
Yeah, i've heard that too...but i dunno how that coincides with the bible. I dunno how long that land mass separation would take.

Paul_born_again
Aug 18th 2008, 09:51 PM
The questions I asked were regarding natural things, like an overpopulation of flies in the ark, the animal to boat space ratio, and how certain animals got to their respective habitats after the flood. Certainly, God could have stopped flies from breeding while in the ark, made the ark like a clown car that could have fit an infinite amount of animals in it, and teleported all the animals to their respective habitats after the flood, but the bible makes no mention of that, and I was wondering if there was a more natural explanation.

I'll assume that you skipped over my post earlier in this thread that addresses each of those questions and links to scientific studies showing specific evidence to back up.

CanadianSlash
Aug 18th 2008, 09:56 PM
I'll assume that you skipped over my post earlier in this thread that addresses each of those questions and links to scientific studies showing specific evidence to back up.

Oh no, i wasn't haha. I thanked you for your responses actually. My response was actually related to how i wasn't questioning God's freedom from the laws of physics.

Paul_born_again
Aug 18th 2008, 10:09 PM
Oh no, i wasn't haha. I thanked you for your responses actually. My response was actually related to how i wasn't questioning God's freedom from the laws of physics.

Ah ok ;) I thought you were asking those questions again in that post, but you were just stating what you asked in your original post.

Concerning God's control of the laws of science:

With all the Flood questions that often arise, I am satisfied in the reading I have done about the subject that the scientific evidence is there, and that everything that the Bible says about the Flood can be verified scientifically.

Even when people ask "how did Noah find all the animals" - the Bible says that the animals came to him. Often, people's response would be "that's not scientific"... but it is! It is not known how many animals have certain homing abilities (such as geese flying thousands of miles each autumn/spring, and yet they can find the exact small pond where they were born and continue to go back there each year), or how certain animals instantly know what to do when born (such as sea-turtles crawling to the ocean after hatching from their eggs).

With accepted mysteries like that, I have no problem whatsoever thinking that God made those animals travel, find, and enter Noah's Ark.

Athanasius
Aug 19th 2008, 01:24 AM
Rainbows- God sent the rainbow as a promise that he would never flood the earth again right? Were there no rainbows before then? :confused

Not if it didn't rain.



Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...

Well, they "only" eat eucalyptus trees that we know of. Remember, all swans are white.



Fish- If there was a huge flood, wouldn't that have effectively mixed all the freshwater and saltwater? And, if i remember correctly from AP biology two years ago...very few saltwater fish can survive in freshwater, and very few freshwater fish can survive in saltwater. How did any fish survive?

Speaking of AP Biology...what about fruit flies? I remember those things have freaking short life spans (They're adults after about 5 hours), but they breed like nobody's business. Wouldn't the ark have been completely overrun?

A supernatural God floods the earth and keeps a single family alive by telling Noah to build a boat.

But this supernatural God is going to get caught up on natural "problems" as we see it? Don't want to make it sound like I'm saying "God did it". But where has God's power gone?

lendtay
Aug 19th 2008, 02:16 AM
God promised to never flood the entire earth again. So far, he has kept that promise. To me, that is very persuasive evidence that the Bible is true.

Paul_born_again
Aug 19th 2008, 03:10 AM
But this supernatural God is going to get caught up on natural "problems" as we see it? Don't want to make it sound like I'm saying "God did it". But where has God's power gone?

Definitely God can make marine life keep going even in any situation, but I like to think (just my opinion) that God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, designed things right from the start to operate in a way that would survive what He knew was going to happen. Just doing some research on this topic a little further and this is what I found:



"A heterogeneous flood model was set up in a 55-gallon aquarium. A quantity of saltwater 20 cm deep was overlaid with freshwater and the system was exposed to outdoor summertime weather conditions in western Oklahoma. Marine algae (Phaeophyta and Chlorophyta), brine shrimp (Artemia nauplii), a hermit crab and some marine gastropods wee introduced into the saltwater portion. A goldfish (Carassius auratus), two mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), and freshwater plants were introduced into the surface layer. Although some mixing occurred, all the organisms survived four week exposure to outdoor conditions suggesting that protected pockets of marine organisms may have survived the flood by being overlaid with freshwater."

Source: Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 21, Number 1: Survival Of Freshwater And Saltwater Organisms In A Heterogeneous Flood Model Experiment - E. Norbert Smith, Ph.D and Stephen Hagberg, B.S.

Very interesting and awesome! :pp

Athanasius
Aug 19th 2008, 03:23 AM
Definitely God can make marine life keep going even in any situation, but I like to think (just my opinion) that God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, designed things right from the start to operate in a way that would survive what He knew was going to happen. Just doing some research on this topic a little further and this is what I found:

Very interesting and awesome! :pp

I was really just hoping someone smarter than me would do something like this. Can't let people know I didn't know the answer ;)! lol.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 19th 2008, 03:27 AM
I've just been wondering...how does the Flood make any sense at all?

Like, here are a few things:

Rainbows- God sent the rainbow as a promise that he would never flood the earth again right? Were there no rainbows before then? :confusedThe Flood was the first time it ever rained on the earth, so no, there were no rainbows before then. However, if there had been rain prior to the Flood, there probably would have been a rainbow.
Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...It is possible that there were massive land displacements throughout the world after the Flood, due to the enormous weight of the new water on the land. It's possible that Australia, for instance, might not have been cut off just after the Flood. There's a lot more water on the earth's surface now than there was before the Flood. All that weight caused the land under today's oceans to sink, causing a congruent rising of land in today's continents, and especially in today's mountain ranges.
Fish- If there was a huge flood, wouldn't that have effectively mixed all the freshwater and saltwater? And, if i remember correctly from AP biology two years ago...very few saltwater fish can survive in freshwater, and very few freshwater fish can survive in saltwater. How did any fish survive?Not sure about the fresh/saltwater fish question, but considering that most freshwater eventually runs downhill into the oceans, after the Flood was over, there would have been an eventual separation that would occur, just through the same natural processes that we see today. There are a few places on the earth where that separation is impossible. That is why we have things like the Salt Lake in Utah and the Dead Sea in Israel. Those are places that apparently have never been able to drain into the oceans ever since the Flood.
Speaking of AP Biology...what about fruit flies? I remember those things have freaking short life spans (They're adults after about 5 hours), but they breed like nobody's business. Wouldn't the ark have been completely overrun?Think "hibernation".
Then the animals.. How were 2 of every kind fit inside? Isn't that impossible considering how many animals there are?It's difficult to say what kinds of genetic alterations could have occurred since the Flood. It's possible that there might be a lot more breeds in the world today than were on the Ark. Consider for instance that, out of Noah's three sons, we have Orientals, Blacks, Whites, Arabs, "Native Americans", blondes, brunettes.....get the picture? So if all that came from just three sons of Noah, it's very possible that the same thing could have happened with the animals that were aboard.
I'm just curious is all...i'm a very curious guy.No problem, they're good questions. :thumbsup:
Also...something else sort of not related to the flood:

In the Garden of Eden everything ate plants right? Well...what about Venus fly traps? O.OThey could have mutated into their present form after the Flood, just like the animals and humans.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 19th 2008, 03:34 AM
As for the comments about believing without questioning, I could not possibly disagree with that notion more strongly. Belief without questioning is extremely dangerous, and I'll explain why:

Who's to say the Muslims or the Hindus aren't right? We claim that Jesus is the one true way to the Father. "Nobody comes to the Father but through me." Yet a Hindu or a Muslim or people of many other faiths would dispute that. So how are we supposed to know that what we are believing is actually true?

When our faith comes under attack, how are we supposed to respond? Just shrug our shoulders and go on like nothing's wrong? That's an invitation to "falling away".

The answers to every question that has been raised in this thread is out there and available for those who are motivated enough to do the research. We must base our faith on the confirmed Truth of the Bible. And if we can't prove in our own minds that the Bible is 100% true and dependable as the very Word of God, then our faith is built on the proverbial sand, and not the proverbial rock.

If you have questions about something in the Bible that are causing you to question it's Truth, then you need to get them answered, not ignore them. Blind faith is just that: blind. It's also useless.

livingwaters
Aug 19th 2008, 03:37 AM
Canadian Slash, don't you let satan plant doubts and aggravations in your mind. You rebuke those thoughts when they come in Jesus' name. When I know the devil is trying to make me think of things I shouldn't, I do as the Word says: think upon Godly, good, pure things. It works!!!!

Stay in the Word as much as possible. And one other thing I've learned: when you think satan is playing with you, just say JESUS, JESUS, JESUS -remember, the devil has to flee in the presence of JESUS' name!!!Amen:pp:pp Satan is already defeated. Don't let him mess with your mind....

God Bless!:hug:

CanadianSlash
Aug 19th 2008, 05:25 AM
Canadian Slash, don't you let satan plant doubts and aggravations in your mind. You rebuke those thoughts when they come in Jesus' name. When I know the devil is trying to make me think of things I shouldn't, I do as the Word says: think upon Godly, good, pure things. It works!!!!

Stay in the Word as much as possible. And one other thing I've learned: when you think satan is playing with you, just say JESUS, JESUS, JESUS -remember, the devil has to flee in the presence of JESUS' name!!!Amen:pp:pp Satan is already defeated. Don't let him mess with your mind....

God Bless!:hug:

Lol.

I believe the previous poster addresses that nicely...

Ron Brown
Aug 19th 2008, 07:07 AM
And while God isn't limited to laws of physics, that has nothing to do with the questions I asked. The questions I asked were regarding natural things, like an overpopulation of flies in the ark, the animal to boat space ratio, and how certain animals got to their respective habitats after the flood. Certainly, God could have stopped flies from breeding while in the ark, made the ark like a clown car that could have fit an infinite amount of animals in it, and teleported all the animals to their respective habitats after the flood, but the bible makes no mention of that, and I was wondering if there was a more natural explanation.

So, you want a natural explanation about a supernatural flood event?:confused

Do you believe God used his supernatural power to flood the Earth? Or was it a natural event not caused by God?

If you can believe that God used his supernatural power to flood the Earth, how come you can't believe he used his supernatural power to save the animals?

historyb
Aug 19th 2008, 07:31 AM
I've just been wondering...how does the Flood make any sense at all?

Like, here are a few things:

Let me give this a try.


Rainbows- God sent the rainbow as a promise that he would never flood the earth again right? Were there no rainbows before then? :confused

Exactly, that was the first instance of a rainbow. That is easy to figure out though.


Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...

The assumption here is that all was the way we know it now, when in fact and likely it could have been very different back than. So we have to stop putting what we know now as if it always was.


Fish- If there was a huge flood, wouldn't that have effectively mixed all the freshwater and saltwater? And, if i remember correctly from AP biology two years ago...very few saltwater fish can survive in freshwater, and very few freshwater fish can survive in saltwater. How did any fish survive?

Once again your assuming there were both kinds of fish and water when there may have not been.


Speaking of AP Biology...what about fruit flies? I remember those things have freaking short life spans (They're adults after about 5 hours), but they breed like nobody's business. Wouldn't the ark have been completely overrun?

Then the animals.. How were 2 of every kind fit inside? Isn't that impossible considering how many animals there are?

I'm just curious is all...i'm a very curious guy.

Also...something else sort of not related to the flood:

In the Garden of Eden everything ate plants right? Well...what about Venus fly traps? O.O

Here's a site that have answers to your questions, if your serious take a look.

How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood? (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=351)

Two of Every Kind The Animals on Noah’s Ark (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind)

Noah’s ship: Like Nothing You’ve Seen Before (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/noahs-ship)

How Did Animals Spread All Over the World from Where the Ark Landed? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread)

crawfish
Aug 19th 2008, 11:13 PM
Sea creatures live in the water, so a flood would not harm them.

You sure? Freshwater fish would not be able to survive in a saltwater environment like the flood would generate, and the huge influx of freshwater from the global rain (how much would all that fresh water dilute the oceans?) might make the global oceans untenable for most sea life. Plus, the added depths would make food unavailable for many species of sea life.


Then there is the supernatural sparing of some of the species of animals by God himself to factor in. God has the power to do what he wants, when he wants, and God is not limited to the Earthly laws of physics that we humans are limited to. God created the laws of physics we observe in the Universe after all.

While this is definitely true in theory, it forces us to go well beyond what the text says. It's an assumption made because the interpretation of the text demands such understanding.

Paul_born_again
Aug 20th 2008, 01:24 AM
You sure? Freshwater fish would not be able to survive in a saltwater environment like the flood would generate, and the huge influx of freshwater from the global rain (how much would all that fresh water dilute the oceans?) might make the global oceans untenable for most sea life. Plus, the added depths would make food unavailable for many species of sea life.


What is your opinion about the research paper "Survival Of Freshwater And Saltwater Organisms In A Heterogeneous Flood Model Experiment" by the Creation Research Society, that I posted above?

Literalist-Luke
Aug 20th 2008, 02:12 AM
So, you want a natural explanation about a supernatural flood event?:confused

Do you believe God used his supernatural power to flood the Earth? Or was it a natural event not caused by God?

If you can believe that God used his supernatural power to flood the Earth, how come you can't believe he used his supernatural power to save the animals?I would suggest that the Flood was a natural event that was supernaturally timed. Christian geologists actually have a very logical explanation for the process by which the Flood occurred, based on Genesis and an analysis of the world around us. If you really want the boring details, I can try to summarize them in another post.

It does tie in perfectly with the Bible's descriptions in Genesis as well as with the facts of the world that we see around us today, plus it also fits perfectly with the newly appearing rainbow subsequent to the Flood. It's all very logical, as long as one is willing to subscribe to Creationism.

For now, suffice to say that the water was probably not appearing out of nowhere in Genesis 6 - that had already happened in Genesis 1.

losthorizon
Aug 20th 2008, 03:57 AM
You sure? Freshwater fish would not be able to survive in a saltwater environment like the flood would generate, and the huge influx of freshwater from the global rain (how much would all that fresh water dilute the oceans?) might make the global oceans untenable for most sea life. Plus, the added depths would make food unavailable for many species of sea life.


A couple of thoughts – (1) science does not know the exact salinity level of the oceans before the flood just as science does not know what the effect of the “one-time non-repeateable” opening of the “fountains of the great deep” had on this same salinity question - even today seawater does not maintain uniformity in the saline level in all the worlds oceans, (2) migratory species can live in both salt and fresh water – it could be possible that most species of fish were able to adjust to more or less salt water for a short period of time (relatively speaking). Do you believe the “flood story” to be historical fact or do you allegorize it like you do the “creation story”?

Ron Brown
Aug 20th 2008, 06:08 AM
I would suggest that the Flood was a natural event that was supernaturally timed.

If this were true, then the Earth would have been flooded dozens of times already, and yet scripture is very clear that it was a one time only event caused Directly by God, and not caused by natural weather patterns.

The flood was not a natural event, it was a supernatural event.

Paul_born_again
Aug 20th 2008, 03:32 PM
If this were true, then the Earth would have been flooded dozens of times already, and yet scripture is very clear that it was a one time only event caused Directly by God, and not caused by natural weather patterns.

The flood was not a natural event, it was a supernatural event.

I think Literalist-Luke is saying (correct me if I'm putting wrong words in your mouth), that it was natural in the sense that God placed the fountains of the deep into the earth (in the creation of the world) because in His foreknowledge, He knew the earth would have to be flooded. And it was natural because God created the conditions for salt/fresh water marine life to still exist despite the mixture of the two, right from the moment of creation.

(those are just 2 examples...)

It was supernatural in the sense that God caused it, but it was natural in the sense that He did it in a way that left natural clues and evidence that science can analyze even today.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 20th 2008, 03:34 PM
If this were true, then the Earth would have been flooded dozens of times already, and yet scripture is very clear that it was a one time only event caused Directly by God, and not caused by natural weather patterns.

The flood was not a natural event, it was a supernatural event.Well, you're apparently not aware of the "natural" process that I'm suggesting led to the Flood. Because the conditions that caused the Flood to happen have no longer existed since then, rendering a repeat impossible. And let me ask you this: What, precisely, is "supernatural"? I assume you have some image in mind for exactly how the Flood occurred. How do you think God "caused" it to come about? I mean, from a Creationist point of view, the whole of nature and physics could be viewed as wholly "supernatural". Most people just don't think of it that way, because we get dulled by seeing the world functioning around us on a daily basis.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 20th 2008, 03:36 PM
I think Literalist-Luke is saying (correct me if I'm putting wrong words in your mouth), that it was natural in the sense that God placed the fountains of the deep into the earth (in the creation of the world) because in His foreknowledge, He knew the earth would have to be flooded. And it was natural because God created the conditions for salt/fresh water marine life to still exist despite the mixture of the two, right from the moment of creation.

(those are just 2 examples...)

It was supernatural in the sense that God caused it, but it was natural in the sense that He did it in a way that left natural clues and evidence that science can analyze even today.That is generally what I had in mind, yes, thank you. :thumbsup:

crawfish
Aug 20th 2008, 04:42 PM
What is your opinion about the research paper "Survival Of Freshwater And Saltwater Organisms In A Heterogeneous Flood Model Experiment" by the Creation Research Society, that I posted above?

I read it, and to be honest it really didn't seem to explain anything. It offered some scant possibilities that weren't backed up by much real science.

Understand, my point isn't to deny the possibility of a worldwide flood. If it happened as is literally taken, though, it is going to be completely in the realm of the supernatural; God's supernatural hand would have to be everywhere guiding it, and no amount of rational thought is going to be able to prove it as a natural event.

crawfish
Aug 20th 2008, 04:45 PM
A couple of thoughts – (1) science does not know the exact salinity level of the oceans before the flood just as science does not know what the effect of the “one-time non-repeateable” opening of the “fountains of the great deep” had on this same salinity question - even today seawater does not maintain uniformity in the saline level in all the worlds oceans, (2) migratory species can live in both salt and fresh water – it could be possible that most species of fish were able to adjust to more or less salt water for a short period of time (relatively speaking). Do you believe the “flood story” to be historical fact or do you allegorize it like you do the “creation story”?

The flood story is a chiasm, like many of the Psalms. That doesn't prove anything by itself, but it does leave some room for interpretation. That poetic form isn't used for any of the other history books of the OT.

BOWIE
Aug 20th 2008, 05:04 PM
I didn't read the entire thread so this may have been said already.

God DID NOT flood the entire earth. There are far to many species, sub-species, etc that would have needed to propegate the earth and evolve in such a (relatively) short time that it can be stated as fact that it didn't happen. For instance, The Tuatara of Madagascar. It is a unique reptile that is not related to any other. It came from the early Mesozoic era before the time of the dinosaurs. How did a creature that existed before the dinosaurs manage to die (which it definitely would have after being flooded) and then, in just a short time, re-appear??

I DO believe that God flooded the region which, to the people of the time, was "the earth". In fact, there has been some evidence supporting that the region (pardon me for not recalling the name of the geographic area) could feasibly be flooded. It would have appeared that the "world" was flooded and would lend truth the the story of Noah's arc.

Remember folks, the bible was not written in English. So, when you try to take certain words literally, you decieve yourself and others. Keep in mind the number of translations and accounts. There are even variances between Bibles. He has left it to us to seek knowledge and truth.

mcgyver
Aug 20th 2008, 05:12 PM
I've got to ask (just like me, stirring up trouble). :P

IF God created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them (both seen and unseen)...which is what I believe BTW...

Is it therefore impossible for the flood to have occurred exactly as is described in Genesis?

If so, why? (Is it simply because we don't understand or can't comprehend the mechanisms involved?) :hmm:

Ron Brown
Aug 20th 2008, 05:38 PM
You guys need to read Genesis 6-7 again. It rained 40 days and 40 nights, and the Earth was completely flooded, and the water even covered the highest mountains. The flood water remained on the Earth 150 days. The Bible only says that the land dwelling creatures who were not on the Ark died, not the sea dwelling creatures. It was a supernatural event, not a natural event.

I trust the scriptures over what any man tells me. You can have your secular science, and I'll take the Word of God instead.

historyb
Aug 20th 2008, 06:46 PM
http://forum.mambo-foundation.org/images/smilies/amen.gif

crawfish
Aug 20th 2008, 08:33 PM
You guys need to read Genesis 6-7 again. It rained 40 days and 40 nights, and the Earth was completely flooded, and the water even covered the highest mountains. The flood water remained on the Earth 150 days. The Bible only says that the land dwelling creatures who were not on the Ark died, not the sea dwelling creatures. It was a supernatural event, not a natural event.

I trust the scriptures over what any man tells me. You can have your secular science, and I'll take the Word of God instead.

You probably don't want to hear that "40" is an amount used by the ancient Hebrews to indicate "a long period of time, for the purposes of purification". So, it doesn't mean a literal 40 days and 40 nights. Numerology and idioms were definitely part of the Hebrew mindset, and found their way into God's word.

The problem is reading the text with a 21st-century viewpoint, and thinking that means you are "taking the Word of God literally".

Mike CP King
Aug 20th 2008, 09:47 PM
I've just been wondering...how does the Flood make any sense at all?

Like, here are a few things:

Rainbows- God sent the rainbow as a promise that he would never flood the earth again right? Were there no rainbows before then? :confused

Migration- After the flood...how did the animals cross oceans to get to their habitats? Especially some kinds, like, koalas and kangaroos that only exist in australia. Also, koala's only eat eucalyptus trees...

Fish- If there was a huge flood, wouldn't that have effectively mixed all the freshwater and saltwater? And, if i remember correctly from AP biology two years ago...very few saltwater fish can survive in freshwater, and very few freshwater fish can survive in saltwater. How did any fish survive?

Speaking of AP Biology...what about fruit flies? I remember those things have freaking short life spans (They're adults after about 5 hours), but they breed like nobody's business. Wouldn't the ark have been completely overrun?

Then the animals.. How were 2 of every kind fit inside? Isn't that impossible considering how many animals there are?

I'm just curious is all...i'm a very curious guy.

Also...something else sort of not related to the flood:

In the Garden of Eden everything ate plants right? Well...what about Venus fly traps? O.O

Well, believe it or not, I actually hold the UK's national collection of Venus Flytraps! Check out my website!

It is quite simple; my belief is that the flood came out of the consequence with the rise in sea levels (120m + when the current mountainous areas were much lower due to Isostacy due to the weight of the ice pressing on continental crust into the mantle) and sudden floods due to ice locked lakes breaking through would be enough to cover from the perspective writers for the waters to 'cover the whole earth'.

The evidence for other types of creatures like kangaroos etccolonising other continents after the flood is non existent, and even aboriginal cultural history goes well beyond 4,000 years.. The truth of the flood is it happened, it was due to the ice melt and there is much evidence that the stories that made it into Babylonian history (where the story of Noah actually came from) was centred around civilisations around the current Black Sea, now under water!

Ron Brown
Aug 20th 2008, 10:21 PM
You probably don't want to hear that "40" is an amount used by the ancient Hebrews to indicate "a long period of time, for the purposes of purification". So, it doesn't mean a literal 40 days and 40 nights. Numerology and idioms were definitely part of the Hebrew mindset, and found their way into God's word.


Forty in the Hebrew is 'arba 'iym, wich translates only one way, and that is FORTY.

It doesn't translate into long period of time in the Hebrew.

losthorizon
Aug 20th 2008, 11:05 PM
The flood story is a chiasm, like many of the Psalms. That doesn't prove anything by itself, but it does leave some room for interpretation. That poetic form isn't used for any of the other history books of the OT.
I would submit that most theological studies that rely heavily on chiasmus for the purpose of exegesis usually reduces the Bible to a mere book of mythology and I fear that is the road you are traveling my friend – and a dangerous road it is. Your worldview already dovetails with the leading atheistic worldview of creation and now you are allegorizing away historical fact.

losthorizon
Aug 20th 2008, 11:09 PM
You probably don't want to hear that "40" is an amount used by the ancient Hebrews to indicate "a long period of time, for the purposes of purification". So, it doesn't mean a literal 40 days and 40 nights. Numerology and idioms were definitely part of the Hebrew mindset, and found their way into God's word.

The problem is reading the text with a 21st-century viewpoint, and thinking that means you are "taking the Word of God literally".
Is it your notion that 40 days cannot mean 40 days? Did the spies search for 40 literal days?
It took the spies 40 days to search out the promised land and bring back fruit (Num 13:25 KJV)

apothanein kerdos
Aug 20th 2008, 11:33 PM
It [40 days] is an idiom to mean "a long time." Such as someone saying, "I've been at work forever today." Well, obviously 'forever' has a literal meaning and an idiomatic meaning; it refers to a person being at work for a prolonged period of time.

Likewise, in ANE (Ancient Near East) literature the "40 days" simply refers to a long period of time. Thus, the Flood doesn't have to literally be 40 days (at least the rain) - it could merely be a few days or what was a prolonged period of time. When God gave Genesis to Moses (or Moses relied on dictation from God with other various writings) it is likely that the parlance of the times was spoken.

This doesn't mean the flood didn't occur or that it wasn't universal - merely that the rain most likely didn't last a literal 40 days.

losthorizon
Aug 20th 2008, 11:56 PM
It [40 days] is an idiom to mean "a long time." Such as someone saying, "I've been at work forever today." Well, obviously 'forever' has a literal meaning and an idiomatic meaning; it refers to a person being at work for a prolonged period of time.

Likewise, in ANE (Ancient Near East) literature the "40 days" simply refers to a long period of time. Thus, the Flood doesn't have to literally be 40 days (at least the rain) - it could merely be a few days or what was a prolonged period of time. When God gave Genesis to Moses (or Moses relied on dictation from God with other various writings) it is likely that the parlance of the times was spoken.

This doesn't mean the flood didn't occur or that it wasn't universal - merely that the rain most likely didn't last a literal 40 days.
But it could have been a literal 40 day could it not?

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 12:08 AM
Forty in the Hebrew is 'arba 'iym, wich translates only one way, and that is FORTY.

It doesn't translate into long period of time in the Hebrew.

It's an idiom...a word/phrase that has meaning deeper than its literal meaning. Numerology was a part of ancient Israel culture - and, in fact, a part of nearly every single ancient middle eastern culture. Here are some facts about "40":

1) It's used 98 times in the bible.
2) Each use as a time period is used to indicate cleansing/testing.
3) The duration is used for deliberate events (those the person controls) and natural ones.
4) The number is referenced hundreds of times in extra-biblical literature from ancient Hebrews and their surrounding cultures. It is used in a matter consistent with the biblical usage.

The patterns are pretty undeniable. Either the time period itself was less important than the underlying meaning of the number, or God chose to implement each and every event using the exact same number of time increments. And you have to ask yourself - why would God choose the same time increment to indicate the same type of event as the PAGAN cultures around Israel was using, if instead He was setting the literal number of days?

You see, you interpret "forty" like a 21st century product of the age of reason would; as a literal number. If you interpreted it as an ancient Hebrew would, you would not come to that conclusion.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 21st 2008, 12:10 AM
God DID NOT flood the entire earth.Horse hockey. I don't buy it. Even the mountains were covered.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 21st 2008, 12:12 AM
You probably don't want to hear that "40" is an amount used by the ancient Hebrews to indicate "a long period of time, for the purposes of purification". So, it doesn't mean a literal 40 days and 40 nights. Numerology and idioms were definitely part of the Hebrew mindset, and found their way into God's word.

The problem is reading the text with a 21st-century viewpoint, and thinking that means you are "taking the Word of God literally".So how long was it?

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 12:21 AM
But it could have been a literal 40 day could it not?

Sure it could. And:

The Israelites could have wandered a literal 40 years in the desert.

Moses' life is split into three periods of exactly 40 years (in Egypt, in the wilderness, leading Israel).

Elijah walked a literal 40 days and 40 nights to reach mount Horeb.

The reign of David was a literal 40 years.

The reign of Solomon was a literal 40 years.

The reign of Jereboam was a literal 40 and one years (the term "and one" is also significant)

The reign of Jehu was a literal 40 years.

The reign of Joash lasted a literal 40 years.

Moses stayed on the mountain a literal 40 days and 40 nights.

The Philistines ruled over Israel for a literal 40 years.

Eli judged Israel a literal 40 years.

Ninevah was required to atone for 40 days.

...and so on.

How many times must this occur to indicate a pattern? Why would God choose to have something happen in the same number of time elements over and over and over again?

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 12:22 AM
So how long was it?

It doesn't matter. :)

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 12:35 AM
But it could have been a literal 40 day could it not?

Yes, it could have been, but this doesn't mean it was. At best we can say that it was a long period of time - to speculate on the number of days is really just that; speculation.

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 12:37 AM
How many times must this occur to indicate a pattern? Why would God choose to have something happen in the same number of time elements over and over and over again?
No one denies the Bible uses numbers in patterns but there is no methodology of interpretation that dogmatically says every time the number 40 is used it must not be taken literally – you appear rigid.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 12:40 AM
No one denies the Bible uses numbers in patterns but there is no methodology of interpretation that dogmatically says every time the number 40 is used it must not be taken literally – you appear rigid.

Actually...

If you look to the culture, time period, intended audience, and geographical location where written then you can usually figure if it's literal or idiomatic.

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 12:41 AM
Yes, it could have been, but this doesn't mean it was. At best we can say that it was a long period of time - to speculate on the number of days is really just that; speculation.
It says 40 years – if one wishes to interpret it as such it does no harm to the flood narative – does it? ;)

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 12:44 AM
It says 40 years – if one wishes to interpret it as such it does no harm to the flood narative – does it? ;)

It doesn't cause a problem until somebody wants to try and prove it scientifically, or until somebody declares you a heretic because you are not reading the bible "for what it plainly says".

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 12:46 AM
It says 40 years – if one wishes to interpret it as such it does no harm to the flood narative – does it? ;)

Not in an immediate discussion. If, however, we are trying to determine if the entire story is literal (i.e. does "all" mean "all," was it universal or local) then it can throw a wrench into the discussion. If one part is an idiom, then we have the messy task of trying to figure what else is metaphorical or idiomatic in the story.

BOWIE
Aug 21st 2008, 01:05 AM
Horse hockey. I don't buy it. Even the mountains were covered.
The mountains in that area were. But not all of terra firma.

If you could explain to me the plethora of animal species that exist today, how Noah traveled to different continents to gather them, how he put them back on those continents (so that their current inhabitance would be consistent w/ fossil record) then I would be mystified! :)

I have a pretty strong knowledge of wildlife and I'll tell you that having a pair of cats, or lizards on the arc does not account for the incredible variety of cats and lizards across the world. There was not enough time for all of the sub-species to evolve to what they are today.
This doesn't mean that the Bible's account isn't true, it just means that our traditional interpretation is not. Did god write about the arc, or did a man? A man did, and he wrote what he saw.

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 01:09 AM
Not in an immediate discussion. If, however, we are trying to determine if the entire story is literal (i.e. does "all" mean "all," was it universal or local) then it can throw a wrench into the discussion. If one part is an idiom, then we have the messy task of trying to figure what else is metaphorical or idiomatic in the story.
Was there a literal flood that destroyed all but eight souls?

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 01:12 AM
It doesn't cause a problem until somebody wants to try and prove it scientifically, or until somebody declares you a heretic because you are not reading the bible "for what it plainly says".
Can one “prove” supernatural events through the tools of science? Does God sometimes act “supernaturally” – ie outside of nature?

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 01:13 AM
Was there a literal flood that destroyed all but eight souls?

My own personal belief borders on "yes" and "no."

Do I believe a flood occurred? Absolutely. Do I believe Noah literally existed? Again, yes. Do I believe if you and I could travel back in time and video record him building the ark that we would see him doing such a thing? Yes, I believe this.

Do I believe the flood literally covered the entire earth? Not really. Do I believe all of humanity was wiped out save these 8 souls? Absolutely I do.

I look at it in its cultural context and attempt to determine what is literal and what is a literary device. It could very well be that I'm wrong on a global flood (certainly the melting of the ice at the end of the Ice Age would have caused rampant flooding and torrential rainfall).

historyb
Aug 21st 2008, 01:20 AM
The mountains in that area were. But not all of terra firma.

If you could explain to me the plethora of animal species that exist today, how Noah traveled to different continents to gather them, how he put them back on those continents (so that their current inhabitance would be consistent w/ fossil record) then I would be mystified! :)

Noah didn't God brought the animals to the Ark.


I have a pretty strong knowledge of wildlife and I'll tell you that having a pair of cats, or lizards on the arc does not account for the incredible variety of cats and lizards across the world. There was not enough time for all of the sub-species to evolve to what they are today.

The fatal flaw is believing any part of evolution happened and in assuming we modern man know better than Ancient man did.



This doesn't mean that the Bible's account isn't true, it just means that our traditional interpretation is not. Did god write about the arc, or did a man? A man did, and he wrote what he saw.

God inspired Scripture, God can not lie.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 01:29 AM
God inspired Scripture, God can not lie.

BOOM! This ends the discussion.:pp

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 01:38 AM
BOOM! This ends the discussion.:pp
...but this ignores interpretation. God cannot lie, but man can (and often does) misinterpret what God has to say. This isn't a debate over whether or not God lied or even if Scripture is the Word of God - it's over our interpretation of that Scripture.

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 01:42 AM
My own personal belief borders on "yes" and "no."

Do I believe a flood occurred? Absolutely. Do I believe Noah literally existed? Again, yes. Do I believe if you and I could travel back in time and video record him building the ark that we would see him doing such a thing? Yes, I believe this.

Do I believe the flood literally covered the entire earth? Not really. Do I believe all of humanity was wiped out save these 8 souls? Absolutely I do.

I look at it in its cultural context and attempt to determine what is literal and what is a literary device. It could very well be that I'm wrong on a global flood (certainly the melting of the ice at the end of the Ice Age would have caused rampant flooding and torrential rainfall).
Well – I don’t think I would find much to disagree with – thanks for your thoughts.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 01:43 AM
...but this ignores interpretation. God cannot lie, but man can (and often does) misinterpret what God has to say. This isn't a debate over whether or not God lied or even if Scripture is the Word of God - it's over our interpretation of that Scripture.

For some it is, but others in this thread are denying that God caused the flood with his supernatural powers. This is herasy, not a discussion over scripture.

BOWIE
Aug 21st 2008, 01:44 AM
Noah didn't God brought the animals to the Ark.

The fatal flaw is believing any part of evolution happened and in assuming we modern man know better than Ancient man did.

God inspired Scripture, God can not lie.

Friend, no offense to you but this is what really worries me about Christianity today. We're looking silly and losing believers rapidly because we are not willing to truly look at the facts. I don't think God would ever want me to just close my eyes and be ignorant to the evidence he has placed before me. I know that the Bible is true, however I just don't follow the simplified, "baby talk" interpretations that my Grandparents did. How can we possibly share the gospel w/ educated people if we keep our minds in the stone age?

Why does the word "evolution" freak Christians out so bad?? Things evolve. You cannot possibly deny that. Why do you think some races have dark skin, or why domesticated dogs are predisposed towards certain behaviors? It's because the wonderful bodies and minds that God gave us are able to adapt to their environments and situations.

And regarding, "God inspired Scripture, God can not lie" be careful with that one. Man has translated the Bible many, many times. Are you ready to say that all the varying tranlations, and their respective differences, are ALL true. If you hold God to the flaws of man, then you are in fact calling him a liar. Food for thought...

BOWIE
Aug 21st 2008, 01:49 AM
For some it is, but others in this thread are denying that God caused the flood with his supernatural powers. This is herasy, not a discussion over scripture.

That is not what it is about. "Some people here" understand the Bible differently than you do. To be so bold as to call those people heretics is insulting and I really don't think God appreciates you insulting his believers and they try to discuss and interpret his word.

historyb
Aug 21st 2008, 01:50 AM
Friend, no offense to you but this is what really worries me about Christianity today. We're looking silly and losing believers rapidly because we are not willing to truly look at the facts. I don't think God would ever want me to just close my eyes and be ignorant to the evidence he has placed before me. I know that the Bible is true, however I just don't follow the simplified, "baby talk" interpretations that my Grandparents did. How can we possibly share the gospel w/ educated people if we keep our minds in the stone age?

We look silly when we embrace atheistic science. I am proud to look silly for Christ, the Gospel offends so I am not surprised Man wants to rationalize the Scriptures away.


Why does the word "evolution" freak Christians out so bad?? Things evolve. You cannot possibly deny that. Why do you think some races have dark skin, or why domesticated dogs are predisposed towards certain behaviors? It's because the wonderful bodies and minds that God gave us are able to adapt to their environments and situations.

I do very much deny that, Evilution has a very specific meaning and yes I misspelled it on purpose.


And regarding, "God inspired Scripture, God can not lie" be careful with that one. Man has translated the Bible many, many times. Are you ready to say that all the varying translations, and their respective differences, are ALL true. If you hold God to the flaws of man, then you are in fact calling him a liar. Food for thought...

Nope those that insist things could not happen that way are in effect calling God a liar, as if He would inspire lies and modern Man is smarter than anything that came before.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 01:50 AM
BTW -

Though I'm undecided on a global flood (and lean heavily toward a local flood), I will say this in defense of the animal argument. Since this portion of Genesis is poetic in nature, the "every kind" doesn't literally have to mean "every kind of animal" but instead could refer to every type. Thus, the difference types of dogs is irrelevant - it's simply two dogs (male and female). Considering the area at the time, it is entirely possible for every type to have been on the ark with the differentiation between species taking place post-flood.

Though there are holes in this argument, it certainly makes it seem more plausible.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 01:52 AM
For some it is, but others in this thread are denying that God caused the flood with his supernatural powers. This is herasy, not a discussion over scripture.

Who is denying God did it? From what I can see people are denying that it was universal.

The closest I've seen to denial is someone saying that the flood account was taken from the epic story of Gilgamesh, which yes, is wrong and should be dismissed as shoddy scholarship. But no one is saying, "God didn't do this, it was all natural."

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 02:11 AM
Why does the word "evolution" freak Christians out so bad?? Things evolve. You cannot possibly deny that. Why do you think some races have dark skin, or why domesticated dogs are predisposed towards certain behaviors? It's because the wonderful bodies and minds that God gave us are able to adapt to their environments and situations.


I am a Christian and evolution certainly doesn’t “freak” me. What you describe – racial differences, the differences between poodles and beagles all come under the science of biological evolution and Christians have no problem with this concept. But many people - Christians, non-Christians, scientists and non-scientist reject Darwinian evolution – a mixture of science and metaphysics. There is nothing anti-intellectual about rejecting philosophy passed off as science.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 02:14 AM
Who is denying God did it? From what I can see people are denying that it was universal.


Genesis 7:10- And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

The Hebrew word for earth used here is 'erets, which means either land (as in a piece of ground) or earth (as in whole earth).

I guess you have to decide which the Bible is talknig about for yourself? A part of the earth flooded, or the whole earth flooded? If you believe people were not living around the entire globe, then the part of the earth flood position works. If you believe that the entire earth was populated, then you have to go with the global flood position.

Genesis 6:1 states that men began to multiply on the face of the earth. This could either mean the entire earth or part of the earth. So again, I guess you have to theorise which it was?

I think it was the entire face of the earth, but it's just my opinion I guess. Ii could be right or I could be wrong, but so could the partial earth theorists.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 02:46 AM
Genesis 7:10- And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

The Hebrew word for earth used here is 'erets, which means either land (as in a piece of ground) or earth (as in whole earth).

I guess you have to decide which the Bible is talknig about for yourself? A part of the earth flooded, or the whole earth flooded? If you believe people were not living around the entire globe, then the part of the earth flood position works. If you believe that the entire earth was populated, then you have to go with the global flood position.

Genesis 6:1 states that men began to multiply on the face of the earth. This could either mean the entire earth or part of the earth. So again, I guess you have to theorise which it was?

I think it was the entire face of the earth, but it's just my opinion I guess. Ii could be right or I could be wrong, but so could the partial earth theorists.

That was actually the point I was going to bring up (the Hebrew word). I do believe that humans were located to a central point (I use the term 'central' very loosely). In light of that, I tend toward a 'local' flood.

historyb
Aug 21st 2008, 02:47 AM
Genesis 7:10- And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

The Hebrew word for earth used here is 'erets, which means either land (as in a piece of ground) or earth (as in whole earth).

I guess you have to decide which the Bible is talknig about for yourself? A part of the earth flooded, or the whole earth flooded? If you believe people were not living around the entire globe, then the part of the earth flood position works. If you believe that the entire earth was populated, then you have to go with the global flood position.

Genesis 6:1 states that men began to multiply on the face of the earth. This could either mean the entire earth or part of the earth. So again, I guess you have to theorise which it was?

I think it was the entire face of the earth, but it's just my opinion I guess. Ii could be right or I could be wrong, but so could the partial earth theorists.


Hmm, never thought of it that way. Food for thought.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 02:53 AM
Hmm, never thought of it that way. Food for thought.

I have always thought of it this way, but I still hold to the global flood. There are fossils all around the entire world that were deposited because of the flood, so living creatures were not just in one geographical location, they were world wide.

Paul_born_again
Aug 21st 2008, 03:09 AM
I have a pretty strong knowledge of wildlife and I'll tell you that having a pair of cats, or lizards on the arc does not account for the incredible variety of cats and lizards across the world. There was not enough time for all of the sub-species to evolve to what they are today.


Provide evidence for this please. Or at least, provide counter-evidence to disprove the scientific research that I have posted earlier in this thread that shows strong evidence that indeed all the current cats could come from 2 cats.

BOWIE
Aug 21st 2008, 04:16 AM
Provide evidence for this please. Or at least, provide counter-evidence to disprove the scientific research that I have posted earlier in this thread that shows strong evidence that indeed all the current cats could come from 2 cats.

First, given the dimensions of the arc, we have to be reasonable about the capacity of the vessel. I'll be generous and say that there was a pair of big cats, and a pair of Tigers. The flood is most commonly argued to have happened between 2,000 and 4,000 BC. I'll be Generous and say 4,000. Do you think that 6,000 years is enough time for those animals to have developed into Bobcats, Cheetahs, Jaguarundi, Mountain Lions, etc? All sorts of sizes, bone structures, patterns, and colors. Let alone the fact that they are spread across the globe and have adapted to a wide variety of climates. Cats ore one of the LEAST diverse species out there.

Let's try reptiles! There are a mind boggling array or reptiles. To make it easier, let's take only lizards. Some have no legs. Some change colors. There are lizards w/ a crudely developed "third eye" for seeing shadows of birds overhead. Some can squirt blood. There are venomous lizards. Lizards that can eat you. Lizards that have developed wings for sailing from trees. I will cut it short here but I could go on for hours...
There changes did not happen over a mere 6,000 years. Noah could have had a dozen types of lizards but they still would have not been able to evolve into all these variations in such a short time.

I'm very passionate about proving that the Bible IS correct. I once believed that the whole world was flooded. But, common sense told me that either part of the Bible was wrong, or there was something I was missing. This really troubled me. So I dug deep and studied until I found what the Bible was really saying and how it's evidence can be seen in the world around me. Doing such things is the only way that we can help educated people come to Christ.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 04:11 PM
First, given the dimensions of the arc, we have to be reasonable about the capacity of the vessel. I'll be generous and say that there was a pair of big cats, and a pair of Tigers. The flood is most commonly argued to have happened between 2,000 and 4,000 BC. I'll be Generous and say 4,000. Do you think that 6,000 years is enough time for those animals to have developed into Bobcats, Cheetahs, Jaguarundi, Mountain Lions, etc? All sorts of sizes, bone structures, patterns, and colors. Let alone the fact that they are spread across the globe and have adapted to a wide variety of climates. Cats ore one of the LEAST diverse species out there.

Let's try reptiles! There are a mind boggling array or reptiles. To make it easier, let's take only lizards. Some have no legs. Some change colors. There are lizards w/ a crudely developed "third eye" for seeing shadows of birds overhead. Some can squirt blood. There are venomous lizards. Lizards that can eat you. Lizards that have developed wings for sailing from trees. I will cut it short here but I could go on for hours...
There changes did not happen over a mere 6,000 years. Noah could have had a dozen types of lizards but they still would have not been able to evolve into all these variations in such a short time.

I'm very passionate about proving that the Bible IS correct. I once believed that the whole world was flooded. But, common sense told me that either part of the Bible was wrong, or there was something I was missing. This really troubled me. So I dug deep and studied until I found what the Bible was really saying and how it's evidence can be seen in the world around me. Doing such things is the only way that we can help educated people come to Christ.

I still don't get why you want a naturalistic explanation, for a supernatural event.

My mom had psoriasas of the liver, she was prayed for by many, and now she does not. The doctors want a naturalistic answer for this but they don't have one? Why is this?

It' was a supernatural healing event, there is no naturalistic answer.

Same applies to the flood, and the events shortly after. God did what he did, and man can't explain it all.

BOWIE
Aug 21st 2008, 05:25 PM
I still don't get why you want a naturalistic explanation, for a supernatural event.

Same applies to the flood, and the events shortly after. God did what he did, and man can't explain it all.

Well, it's because I'm stubborn as a mule and I will not follow anything blindly. And to tell you the truth, I do not think God wants anyone else to either. I've discovered that following the religon of my parent's choice and justifying it because it feels right does not win anyone to Christ. Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, can all take the same argument and stand correct. Any other religion can say, "God did what he did. You must believe it." That doesn't cut it. I don't think God respects that kind of thinking at all.
The story of the arc is explained to us. It is explained how the animals were saved by Noah, in the arc. It does not say that that they were supernaturally manipulated so that genetic variants could remain in their respective geographic locations. If God was going to preserve the animals aroud the world supernaturally, he would not have told Noah to build that arc. The flood itself was indeed an act of God though.

CanadianSlash
Aug 21st 2008, 08:22 PM
Well, it's because I'm stubborn as a mule and I will not follow anything blindly. And to tell you the truth, I do not think God wants anyone else to either. I've discovered that following the religon of my parent's choice and justifying it because it feels right does not win anyone to Christ. Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, can all take the same argument and stand correct. Any other religion can say, "God did what he did. You must believe it." That doesn't cut it. I don't think God respects that kind of thinking at all.
The story of the arc is explained to us. It is explained how the animals were saved by Noah, in the arc. It does not say that that they were supernaturally manipulated so that genetic variants could remain in their respective geographic locations. If God was going to preserve the animals aroud the world supernaturally, he would not have told Noah to build that arc. The flood itself was indeed an act of God though.

:agree:

Believing through faith is fine, but...I've always been dubious about using "God has mysterious ways" as a blanket term for everything we don't understand. If you can't find a way to adequately explain something, then there's no choice but to rely on the omniscience of God. But, I've found that most things like that can be explained in the light of true science. Not the distorted naturalism that is prevalent now though...

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:13 PM
I have no idea. Science suggest plate tectonics, arguing that they weren't originally mountains or something, but i don't know much about that. The flood makes sense for some things, but while answering some questions, it raises others. Like the ones i asked, for example.

I mean...I'm a devout christian, but...so many things are starting to lead me to believe that i shouldn't take the book of genesis literally...


Don't be afraid Canadian...very few people take Genesis literally anymore. The ones that do are grounded in religious fundamentalism and ignore scientific facts.

There might have been a man named Noah, who even built a huge boat for his family, and yes, even a whole bunch of animals to live on for awhile. And yes, here's the big one, science has all but proven there was a huge flood (which made the Black Sea) some five or so thousand years ago.

The thing is, it wasn't a WORLDWIDE flood. It was a local flood, which, to the minds of extremely unintelligent and unscientifc minds back then, would have seemed like a catastrophic, worldwide flood.

To suggest that Noah saved every kind of animal then on Earth and they're all parents of today's animals is something so absurd that only a first grader could believe it.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:15 PM
I agree with the posts above. I think this is the second time i have replied to a post of yours questioning the Word of God/ the bible?

If every scientist on this earth said, that Genesis in it's entirity was unlikely or wrong - it would not interest me in the least.

I am a Christian - I believe the bible.

If others want to speculate beyond what the bible actually says, or what happened before/ after the food in detail - i believe they are wasting valuable time and effort. God reveals what he wants us to know and to want to know more that God has kept hidden is sin.

I do hope you can except God's Will through scripture soon and avoid speculating on what God has decided to hide from humans. SofTy.

People said exactly this kind of statement when a man named Copernicus suggested that the Earth was circled by the Sun.

Athanasius
Aug 21st 2008, 09:18 PM
Don't be afraid Canadian...very few people take Genesis literally anymore. The ones that do are grounded in religious fundamentalism and ignore scientific facts.

This isn't true.



There might have been a man named Noah, who even built a huge boat for his family, and yes, even a whole bunch of animals to live on for awhile. And yes, here's the big one, science has all but proven there was a huge flood (which made the Black Sea) some five or so thousand years ago.

The thing is, it wasn't a WORLDWIDE flood. It was a local flood, which, to the minds of extremely unintelligent and unscientifc minds back then, would have seemed like a catastrophic, worldwide flood.

This isn't true either (Well the last part isn't. There really was a man named Noah who built a boat and survived a world wide flood).



To suggest that Noah saved every kind of animal then on Earth and they're all parents of today's animals is something so absurd that only a first grader could believe it.

This isn't true either.
I don't know about you, but when I talk to fellow Christians I want to hear some truth. Suspiciously, your post lacks this thing.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:19 PM
Yeah, i've heard that too...but i dunno how that coincides with the bible. I dunno how long that land mass separation would take.


Yes!!!!!! All the continents were together at one point. It was called Pangea!!! And I do know how long it took for them to separate to what they are today. It was around 300-450 million years ago.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:27 PM
The Flood was the first time it ever rained on the earth, so no, there were no rainbows before then.

What! You think that the first time it ever rained on Earth was five thousand years ago!? So there was no precipitation for the first 4.6 billion years that Earth existed? Where did you find this information?

Do you understand that LIFE itself, not just human life, would die if there was no rain?

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:34 PM
I didn't read the entire thread so this may have been said already.

God DID NOT flood the entire earth. There are far to many species, sub-species, etc that would have needed to propegate the earth and evolve in such a (relatively) short time that it can be stated as fact that it didn't happen. For instance, The Tuatara of Madagascar. It is a unique reptile that is not related to any other. It came from the early Mesozoic era before the time of the dinosaurs. How did a creature that existed before the dinosaurs manage to die (which it definitely would have after being flooded) and then, in just a short time, re-appear??

I DO believe that God flooded the region which, to the people of the time, was "the earth". In fact, there has been some evidence supporting that the region (pardon me for not recalling the name of the geographic area) could feasibly be flooded. It would have appeared that the "world" was flooded and would lend truth the the story of Noah's arc.

Remember folks, the bible was not written in English. So, when you try to take certain words literally, you decieve yourself and others. Keep in mind the number of translations and accounts. There are even variances between Bibles. He has left it to us to seek knowledge and truth.

Thank you for bringing reason back into this discussion. Everyone else, please, IT IS OK TO ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RELIGION!! It's not blasphemy or heresy. The wonders of modern science are now enabling us to know the scientific processes of God and His work.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 09:44 PM
Here's what I still don't understand?

Christians take the resurrection and transfiguration of Christ literally(which is impossible according to the natural laws of physics), but they don't take Christ's creation of the Universe or the Genesis flood literally?

How come it's so easy to believe in the supernatural resurrection and transfiguration of Christ, but not to believe in the supernatural events in Genesis?

It makes no logical sense to believe in one and deny the other?:confused

Either the Bible is true in every last word, or it's not. John 3:16 is not the only true statement in the Bible, even though most Christians in the 21st century act like it is.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:50 PM
Horse hockey. I don't buy it. Even the mountains were covered.

Believe me, if the entire world was flooded five thousand years ago, which is a complete blink of the eye in terms of world history, the world would be teeming in evidence for it. Geologists, anthropologists, and every other
-ologist would have sniffed that out long, long ago.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 09:52 PM
Believe me, if the entire world was flooded five thousand years ago, which is a complete blink of the eye in terms of world history, the world would be teeming in evidence for it. Geologists, anthropologists, and every other
-ologist would have sniffed that out long, long ago.

There is Global geological evidence of a World wide flood event.

Here in North America we have it. And Noah did not live in North America my friend.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:53 PM
Was there a literal flood that destroyed all but eight souls?

Oh yeah! I forgot about that absurdity. If all people now descended from Noah's family, again, (I hate to sound like a broken record but I need to until we stop reading Genesis literally) scientists would have a field day with DNA evidence. They'd see that all people have such similar DNA that they would've had to come from a scant few people. No one has done that thus far because it didn't happen.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:55 PM
Friend, no offense to you but this is what really worries me about Christianity today. We're looking silly and losing believers rapidly because we are not willing to truly look at the facts. I don't think God would ever want me to just close my eyes and be ignorant to the evidence he has placed before me. I know that the Bible is true, however I just don't follow the simplified, "baby talk" interpretations that my Grandparents did. How can we possibly share the gospel w/ educated people if we keep our minds in the stone age?

Why does the word "evolution" freak Christians out so bad?? Things evolve. You cannot possibly deny that. Why do you think some races have dark skin, or why domesticated dogs are predisposed towards certain behaviors? It's because the wonderful bodies and minds that God gave us are able to adapt to their environments and situations.

And regarding, "God inspired Scripture, God can not lie" be careful with that one. Man has translated the Bible many, many times. Are you ready to say that all the varying tranlations, and their respective differences, are ALL true. If you hold God to the flaws of man, then you are in fact calling him a liar. Food for thought...

Amen. The Pope has repeatedly said that there is NO CONLFICT between evolution and Christianity. Open your minds, people.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 09:59 PM
Well, it's because I'm stubborn as a mule and I will not follow anything blindly.

Yes! Use your brain! Ask questions! If this Flood theory and literalism is all true, then there should be no problem questioning it and it should all stand under questioning. Unfortunately, it hasn't.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 10:03 PM
Take a poll of Christians who believe the Earth is six thousand years old and that every single person is descended from Noah's family and every SORT of animal lived on his boat for 150 days and you will be embarassed by the results.

And you can't only poll religious fundamentalists.

Ron Brown
Aug 21st 2008, 10:17 PM
Take a poll of Christians who believe the Earth is six thousand years old and that every single person is descended from Noah's family and every SORT of animal lived on his boat for 150 days and you will be embarassed by the results.

And you can't only poll religious fundamentalists.

As a born from above Christian, I don't care what people say in polls, I care about what the Word of God says.

People lie, God's Word does not.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 10:21 PM
Don't be afraid Canadian...very few people take Genesis literally anymore. The ones that do are grounded in religious fundamentalism and ignore scientific facts.

There might have been a man named Noah, who even built a huge boat for his family, and yes, even a whole bunch of animals to live on for awhile. And yes, here's the big one, science has all but proven there was a huge flood (which made the Black Sea) some five or so thousand years ago.

The thing is, it wasn't a WORLDWIDE flood. It was a local flood, which, to the minds of extremely unintelligent and unscientifc minds back then, would have seemed like a catastrophic, worldwide flood.

To suggest that Noah saved every kind of animal then on Earth and they're all parents of today's animals is something so absurd that only a first grader could believe it.

I believe in evolution and don't believe in a global flood...but let me say this: You don't have to be arrogant or haughty in the way you approach the issue. In fact, such arrogance betrays your lack of knowledge on it.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 10:29 PM
Oh yeah! I forgot about that absurdity. If all people now descended from Noah's family, again, (I hate to sound like a broken record but I need to until we stop reading Genesis literally) scientists would have a field day with DNA evidence. They'd see that all people have such similar DNA that they would've had to come from a scant few people. No one has done that thus far because it didn't happen.

Human DNA narrows down to about 25-75 people from 25,000 years ago due to super volcanic activity in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean area. Thus, it isn't implausible at all to believe that 8 people could have continued the human race. The DNA evidence shows that humans - in just the last 50,000 years - have come precariously close to extinction quite a few times. In fact, the human population has only become stable in the past 7,000 years. Thus, any geneticist will tell you that tracking our DNA can sometimes be quite tricky due to our "endangered species" status at various points in our history.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 10:30 PM
the Universe or the Genesis flood literally?

How come it's so easy to believe in the supernatural resurrection and transfiguration of Christ, but not to believe in the supernatural events in Genesis?



Because at least we have historical proof that someone named Jesus preached a new message and was executed around the year 27 A.D.

With Noah and Adam and Eve, we have ZERO PROOF, only faith to go off of. THe only records we have of them come from stories that were passed down for centuries before being written down.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 10:33 PM
Human DNA narrows down to about 25-75 people from 25,000 years ago due to super volcanic activity in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean area. Thus, it isn't implausible at all to believe that 8 people could have continued the human race. The DNA evidence shows that humans - in just the last 50,000 years - have come precariously close to extinction quite a few times. In fact, the human population has only become stable in the past 7,000 years. Thus, any geneticist will tell you that tracking our DNA can sometimes be quite tricky due to our "endangered species" status at various points in our history.

Yes, I've read about the "super volcano" in present-day Fiji, if I remember correctly. One minor mistake, though, is that it was 71,000 years ago, not 25, but no big deal. My question, then, is how come science has proved this population bottleneck and not the supposed Noah one?

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 10:34 PM
[quote=apothanein kerdos;1758616]Human DNA narrows down to about 25-75 people from 25,000 years ago due to super volcanic activity in the South Pacific/Indian Ocean area. quote]

Unless, of course, you're talking about an entirely different super volcanic eruption.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 10:42 PM
Because at least we have historical proof that someone named Jesus preached a new message and was executed around the year 27 A.D.

With Noah and Adam and Eve, we have ZERO PROOF, only faith to go off of. THe only records we have of them come from stories that were passed down for centuries before being written down.

What proof is there that these stories were orally passed down?


Yes, I've read about the "super volcano" in present-day Fiji, if I remember correctly. One minor mistake, though, is that it was 71,000 years ago, not 25, but no big deal. My question, then, is how come science has proved this population bottleneck and not the supposed Noah one?

Fair enough, my dates were off. Regardless, this genetic bottleneck isn't the only one. As I stated, human population only stabilized (I use that term to mean it didn't face any major population reductions that threatened extinction)

Secondly, we're still finding bottlenecks. We really stumble upon them, we don't actually seek out to find them. Thus, the Noahidic bottleneck could have been pre-ice age (in fact, a local flood of that magnitude or even a universal flood would help explain some of the instantaneous aspects of the Ice Age) and we simply haven't discovered it yet. You're putting too much faith in science - we should only rely on science when it coincides with a plausible interpretation of Scripture. When the two contradict, we have to decide which to follow.

historyb
Aug 21st 2008, 10:54 PM
Yes!!!!!! All the continents were together at one point. It was called Pangea!!! And I do know how long it took for them to separate to what they are today. It was around 300-450 million years ago.

Imagine that a person as old as that on the forum, wow. To know exactly what happened in ancient times more than God did, what a feat

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 11:01 PM
As a born from above Christian, I don't care what people say in polls, I care about what the Word of God says.

People lie, God's Word does not.

That's fine, but that response was directed to a refutation of my statement that "few Christians still take Genesis literally.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 11:03 PM
Imagine that a person as old as that on the forum, wow. To know exactly what happened in ancient times more than God did, what a feat

99.9% of scientists (I suppose you could find some crackpot) in the world will tell you that the world is at least 4.6 billion years old and a half billion years ago all the continents were joined together.

You're saying they're all wrong?

alongexpectedparty
Aug 21st 2008, 11:11 PM
What proof is there that these stories were orally passed down?

What proof, then, is there that it wasn't?

You're putting too much faith in science - we should only rely on science when it coincides with a plausible interpretation of Scripture. When the two contradict, we have to decide which to follow.

That's one of my whole points...Science and religion don't have to contradict, as long as you interpret the beginning of Genesis literally. Astronomy has proven that the universe was created and formed over 13 billion years. The Bible says a couple of days. If we interpret both of these literally, then yes, one is definitely wrong.

But that's not how you do it. To the ancient person who wrote Genesis, who had absolutely no concept of space, time, science, North America, the list goes on and on, he had to write it in a way that both he, and his unenlightened audience, could understand. That's why it's written so simply and really, like a children's book.

Who's to say that a "day" to God was a 24-hour period? A day could have been 1.7 billion years, or whatever. The story of Adam and Eve was created to try to explain to simple people why there was bad things happening in the world. The Tower of Babel was told to try and explain why humans spoke different languages and not just one.

Don't be afraid of progress, of knowledge. The door to nothing should be closed without at least first considering it. I couldn't believe a coupla people here who said that even questioning this was "the Devil trying to confuse you" or something like that. That sounds like Puritanical witch-talk to me.

historyb
Aug 21st 2008, 11:17 PM
99.9% of scientists (I suppose you could find some crackpot) in the world will tell you that the world is at least 4.6 billion years old and a half billion years ago all the continents were joined together.

You're saying they're all wrong?

No your wrong, I have seen many fantasies like yours. I can tell for a fact that 99.9% scientist does not believe that, maybe 99.9% of the secular scientist but not all scientist.

The biggest problem is people believing that God doesn't know what he is talking about and they know better; the second problem is assuming Ancient man was dumber than we are. Their are findings now in Archeology, like the ancient Computer, to suggest otherwise.

Literalist-Luke
Aug 21st 2008, 11:34 PM
Don't be afraid Canadian...very few people take Genesis literally anymore. The ones that do are grounded in religious fundamentalism and ignore scientific facts.

There might have been a man named Noah, who even built a huge boat for his family, and yes, even a whole bunch of animals to live on for awhile. And yes, here's the big one, science has all but proven there was a huge flood (which made the Black Sea) some five or so thousand years ago.

The thing is, it wasn't a WORLDWIDE flood. It was a local flood, which, to the minds of extremely unintelligent and unscientifc minds back then, would have seemed like a catastrophic, worldwide flood.

To suggest that Noah saved every kind of animal then on Earth and they're all parents of today's animals is something so absurd that only a first grader could believe it.So what other parts of the Bible should we decide what they really mean? I know, let's try the resurrection of Jesus. He didn't really die on that cross, because only a first grader could believe that a man can actually come back from the dead on his own. I think the Muslims got it right. He actually came off that cross before he died. Man, am I glad we got that straightened out.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 21st 2008, 11:50 PM
That's one of my whole points...Science and religion don't have to contradict, as long as you interpret the beginning of Genesis literally. Astronomy has proven that the universe was created and formed over 13 billion years. The Bible says a couple of days. If we interpret both of these literally, then yes, one is definitely wrong.


The problem is this automatically assumes that science will always trump a Scriptural reading. This, of course, doesn't work. For instance, the Bible has always taught in a temporal universe. Science, alternatively, has always taught in an eternal universe. Up until the discovery of the Big Bang science said one thing while Scripture said another. In these two instances, if we used your hermeneutical method, we would have to explain away the Scripture that explains the temporal nature of the universe.

Of course, as we now know, we later discovered that the universe is temporal and not eternal.

This doesn't mean the interpretation of Scripture is always superior to science (the two can often be used together such as in Galileo's defense of helio-centrism), merely that we can't always allow the science of the day to trump Scriptural interpretations. For instance, scientifically miracles are suspicious and according to naturalism they are impossible - how should this play into our interpretations?


But that's not how you do it. To the ancient person who wrote Genesis, who had absolutely no concept of space, time, science, North America, the list goes on and on, he had to write it in a way that both he, and his unenlightened audience, could understand. That's why it's written so simply and really, like a children's book.
If you believe the Bible is inspired then you run into a problem with your flippant explanation (and understanding) of ancient peoples. If you don't, then you have bigger problems.

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 12:31 AM
99.9% of scientists (I suppose you could find some crackpot) in the world will tell you that the world is at least 4.6 billion years old and a half billion years ago all the continents were joined together.

You're saying they're all wrong?

“I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” ~ Dr. John Eddy - Solar Physicist/Astronomer

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:04 AM
Amen.
Thx, I'll take that as a compliment! :D Us heretics gotta stick together.

I used to wonder why so many Christians were more comfortable preaching to uneducated people in third world countries rather than strengthening Christianity in their homelands. Here, in the states, we leave tracts on people's cars and doorsteps. We still rely on the fear of "fire and brimstone". It becomes obvious when you run into arguments like the ones in this thread that our brothers and sisters have nothing to stand on. As soon as you deliver irrefutable facts, they either grow silent or they act as if they are a "Good Christian", and you are a blasphemer.
Makes me sad. That's for sure.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:11 AM
Thx, I'll take that as a compliment! :D Us heretics gotta stick together.

I used to wonder why so many Christians were more comfortable preaching to uneducated people in third world countries rather than strengthening Christianity in their homelands. Here, in the states, we leave tracts on people's cars and doorsteps. We still rely on the fear of "fire and brimstone". It becomes obvious when you run into arguments like the ones in this thread that our brothers and sisters have nothing to stand on. As soon as you deliver irrefutable facts, they either grow silent or they act as if they are a "Good Christian", and you are a blasphemer.
Makes me sad. That's for sure.


I'm going to say something that will inevitably make me seem arrogant, but I feel it needs to be said:

I'm probably far superior to both of you in terms of academic knowledge. In the field of science you might have me beat if you're getting a degree in it. In other relevant subjects of study (such as philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, Biblical hermeneutics, theology, etc) unless you're getting a PhD or finishing up an MA you're no where near my level of education.

This doesn't make me more spiritual. It doesn't make me better. It doesn't even make me smarter or wiser. It merely means that in terms of knowledge on this subject I most likely have more knowledge than the both of you.

Yet I sit here and I'm willing to admit that there are some flaws in the local flood theory (though I hold to it). I don't approach it with the arrogance or haughtiness of, "Oh my, I'm so much more enlightened than these simple minded Christians." Instead, I willingly admit that the scientific evidence could be wrong. This is because science never speaks in terms of absolutes. The reason for this is science cannot, by its very nature, prove anything to be absolute. Therefore, what seems like solid evidence today could be the laughing stock tomorrow.

Now, the evidence certainly points in a certain direction, but we should never be so arrogant as to think that it is conclusive. Furthermore, you should drop the attitude of superiority because there is someone in this thread (me) who's educational level is most likely vastly superior to your own that willingly sees the flaws in our view of the flood.

Again, none of the above is to belittle you, merely to bring you back down to earth.

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:32 AM
there is someone in this thread (me) who's educational level is most likely vastly superior to your own

:D WOW :D (My wife made me edit what I originally typed here)

My ego has, and never will be part of any Biblical discussion. I'll refer you to the famous words of Mark Twain, "I never let my education get in the way of my learning."

(Ok, I'll be nice now...) :saint:

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:35 AM
Oh yeah! I forgot about that absurdity. If all people now descended from Noah's family, again, (I hate to sound like a broken record but I need to until we stop reading Genesis literally) scientists would have a field day with DNA evidence. They'd see that all people have such similar DNA that they would've had to come from a scant few people. No one has done that thus far because it didn't happen.
You appear to be a very angry and frustrated young girl – is this your normal state? Science tells us that all humans are of the species Homo sapiens sapiens (wise human) and we are all of one biological race - the human race. Maybe you can provide your evidences that Y-DNA evidence proves that one man could not be the progenitor of us all. Btw - you sound like a broken record .

apothanein kerdos
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:38 AM
:D WOW :D (My wife made me edit what I originally typed here)

My ego has, and never will be part of any Biblical discussion. I'll refer you to the famous words of Mark Twain, "I never let my education get in the way of my learning."

(Ok, I'll be nice now...) :saint:

Exactly, it's not fun is it? Then why do you feel you have free reign to say that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is uneducated or unenlightened?

Not fun when it's thrown back at you, is it?

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 01:48 AM
:D WOW :D (My wife made me edit what I originally typed here)

My ego has, and never will be part of any Biblical discussion. I'll refer you to the famous words of Mark Twain, "I never let my education get in the way of my learning."


Are you saying your ego has entered into the discussion or are you saying it never will be part of your discussion? Just as an incidental observation - your ego does appear to get the best of you from time to time judging by your posts. But maybe that is true for all of us - yes?

Athanasius
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:12 AM
Take a poll of Christians who believe the Earth is six thousand years old and that every single person is descended from Noah's family and every SORT of animal lived on his boat for 150 days and you will be embarassed by the results.

And you can't only poll religious fundamentalists.

Take a poll of every person alive on the face of the earth and ask them if Jesus is the Son of God, if Hell exists or if there is a personal creator God who allows evil.

Should we stop believing Jesus is the Son of God, in Hell and in a personal God?

Now, take those same questions and ask only those who identify themselves as Christians (in the West)...

Guess what? According to them we should also stop believing Jesus is the Son of God, in Hell and in a personal God.

But majority doesn't mean correct, so what are you trying to get at, aside from making yourself look haughty, arrogant and foolish? You see, truth is truth whether or not anyone says it is. Jesus is God and still died for the sins of mankind even if no one believed it.

CanadianSlash
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:13 AM
That's one of my whole points...Science and religion don't have to contradict, as long as you interpret the beginning of Genesis literally. Astronomy has proven that the universe was created and formed over 13 billion years. The Bible says a couple of days. If we interpret both of these literally, then yes, one is definitely wrong.

But that's not how you do it. To the ancient person who wrote Genesis, who had absolutely no concept of space, time, science, North America, the list goes on and on, he had to write it in a way that both he, and his unenlightened audience, could understand. That's why it's written so simply and really, like a children's book.

Who's to say that a "day" to God was a 24-hour period? A day could have been 1.7 billion years, or whatever. The story of Adam and Eve was created to try to explain to simple people why there was bad things happening in the world. The Tower of Babel was told to try and explain why humans spoke different languages and not just one.

Don't be afraid of progress, of knowledge. The door to nothing should be closed without at least first considering it. I couldn't believe a coupla people here who said that even questioning this was "the Devil trying to confuse you" or something like that. That sounds like Puritanical witch-talk to me.

For all of the superiority you claim to possess, your knowledge of scripture is inferior.

The hebrew word used for day in the creation account is yom. And every time it appears, it's always accompanied by an appropriate number. Whenever there's a modifier for yom, that means it refers to a literal 24 hour day. And this is true for all 359 times it's used elsehwere in the bible.

CanadianSlash
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:15 AM
Take a poll of every person alive on the face of the earth and ask them if Jesus is the Son of God, if Hell exists or if there is a personal creator God who allows evil.

Should we stop believing Jesus is the Son of God, in Hell and in a personal God?

Now, take those same questions and ask only those who identify themselves as Christians (in the West)...

Guess what? According to them we should also stop believing Jesus is the Son of God, in Hell and in a personal God.

But majority doesn't mean correct, so what are you trying to get at, aside from making yourself look haughty, arrogant and foolish? You see, truth is truth whether or not anyone says it is. Jesus is God and still died for the sins of mankind even if no one believed it.

He's right. Did you know that not too long ago everyone believed that bloodletting was healthy? When in reality, it actually was unhealthy? But everyone thought that. So it must have been true. Just like how everyone thought the world was flat.

One of the weakest arguments is the one that states everyone else does it.

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:15 AM
Now your guys are just grasping. I see a lot of insecurity going on here in the fact that people are trying to make personal attacks rather than stick to the topic. Nobody has been able to refute anything I've said but, instead, has turned this into an "I'm smarter" and "You made a gramatical error" attack. I thought it was about the flood?
The wife is telling me I'm getting mean-spirited and she wants to get on here so I'll surrender the keyboard to her for a moment.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:22 AM
Now your guys are just grasping. I see a lot of insecurity going on here in the fact that people are trying to make personal attacks rather than stick to the topic. Nobody has been able to refute anything I've said but, instead, has turned this into an "I'm smarter" and "You made a gramatical error" attack. I thought it was about the flood?
The wife is telling me I'm getting mean-spirited and she wants to get on here so I'll surrender the keyboard to her for a moment.

I actually have responded to some of the arguments.

Secondly, I don't disagree that much - I don't believe in a universal flood.

Third, you're missing the bigger point. You're insulting people's education and level of understanding by how you word your arguments. That was the original point. Maybe your wife can point that out to you?

Athanasius
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:25 AM
Now your guys are just grasping. I see a lot of insecurity going on here in the fact that people are trying to make personal attacks rather than stick to the topic. Nobody has been able to refute anything I've said but, instead, has turned this into an "I'm smarter" and "You made a gramatical error" attack. I thought it was about the flood?
The wife is telling me I'm getting mean-spirited and she wants to get on here so I'll surrender the keyboard to her for a moment.

Sorry, it's spelled "grammatical" ;)

And sorry, but I see no abusive ad hominems in this thread. I mean... Aside from sweeping generalizations, as follows:


Don't be afraid Canadian...very few people take Genesis literally anymore. The ones that do are grounded in religious fundamentalism and ignore scientific facts.

Everyone has been keeping things pretty clean. Don't mean to be rude, and I'll definitely go back through this thread after I've posted this, but what exactly are your arguments? I seem to have problems with realistic expectations of Noah building a boat vs. Noah walking away from the flood area.

divaD
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:42 AM
Personally, I've always held to a global flood view, yet at the same time I do wonder many things. For instance, at the time of the flood, were mankind and animals pretty much located in just one geographical area, or were they spread out across the globe? If the latter is true, where is the Biblical evidence to support it? Also if the latter be true, how was Noah able to warn others on the other side of the planet? And if the former is true, why would a worldwide flood even be necessary?

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


Going by what 2 Peter 2:5 seems to be saying, the world that was flooded was the world of the ungodly, thus the world defined here would represent all of the ungodly, and not be defined as literally the entire world, as in the entire earth. One can also look in 2 Peter 3 and notice that Peter uses 2 entirely different words to define both earth and world.

Ron Brown
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:50 AM
Nobody has been able to refute anything I've said but, instead, has turned this into an "I'm smarter" and "You made a gramatical error" attack. I thought it was about the flood?


All you have said is a bunch of speculation theories about the flood.

What evidences have you provided otherwise?

Speculation is not evidence my friend.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 22nd 2008, 03:54 AM
You appear to be a very angry and frustrated young girl – is this your normal state? Science tells us that all humans are of the species Homo sapiens sapiens (wise human) and we are all of one biological race - the human race. Maybe you can provide your evidences that Y-DNA evidence proves that one man could not be the progenitor of us all. Btw - you sound like a broken record .

Of course, I can't do what you asked...but can you prove that we are all distant relatives of Noah?

alongexpectedparty
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:01 AM
Take a poll of every person alive on the face of the earth and ask them if Jesus is the Son of God, if Hell exists or if there is a personal creator God who allows evil.

Should we stop believing Jesus is the Son of God, in Hell and in a personal God?

Now, take those same questions and ask only those who identify themselves as Christians (in the West)...

Guess what? According to them we should also stop believing Jesus is the Son of God, in Hell and in a personal God.

But majority doesn't mean correct, so what are you trying to get at, aside from making yourself look haughty, arrogant and foolish? You see, truth is truth whether or not anyone says it is. Jesus is God and still died for the sins of mankind even if no one believed it.

I never said I believe what I believe because the majority said so, or that the majority is always right. I was only saying that the majority of Christians today do not take a literalist stance on Noah, which is true.

And who sounds foolish here? Me, who takes the word of the ridiculously vast majority of scientists, people who have dedicated their lives to expanding their knowledge through trial and error, or you, who claims that a man built a boat large enough for at least tens of thousands (perhaps millions or billions?) of animals to live in?

I'm just wondering where Noah's room was on the Ark in relation to the T-Rex's...

alongexpectedparty
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:12 AM
For all of the superiority you claim to possess, your knowledge of scripture is inferior.

The hebrew word used for day in the creation account is yom. And every time it appears, it's always accompanied by an appropriate number. Whenever there's a modifier for yom, that means it refers to a literal 24 hour day. And this is true for all 359 times it's used elsehwere in the bible.

That's nice, and I believe you. But yom meant something to Hebrews, but whose to say that word meant anything to God?

Literalist-Luke
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:13 AM
Can you prove that we are all distant relatives of Noah?Yes - it says it in the Bible.

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:14 AM
Of course, I can't do what you asked...but can you prove that we are all distant relatives of Noah?
But you said you could - you wrote this:

Originally Posted by alongexpectedparty
scientists would have a field day with DNA evidence.
Can you not support your assertion with real science or are you just blowing smoke? Where is your “DNA evidence’? ;)

Athanasius
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:14 AM
I never said I believe what I believe because the majority said so, or that the majority is always right. I was only saying that the majority of Christians today do not take a literalist stance on Noah, which is true.

And who sounds foolish here? Me, who takes the word of the ridiculously vast majority of scientists, people who have dedicated their lives to expanding their knowledge through trial and error, or you, who claims that a man built a boat large enough for at least tens of thousands (perhaps millions or billions?) of animals to live in?

And because they don't believe it, well hey, that must be saying something! (Otherwise, why bring it up?)
You're contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you're saying, "I never said I believe what I believe because the majority said so". And it's true, you didn't. But on the other hand you go on to infer that because scientists believe it and 'educated' believe it and Mary, Jane and Bob believe it, it's got to have some validity, right? That's why you believe what you believe - on authority. And hey, some of the things I believe, I believe on authority as well... But I'm not accusing the other person of being ignorant now, am I? That's really much more of the problem I have.

All I'm asking is that you have some consistency between what you're saying and inferring.



I'm just wondering where Noah's room was on the Ark in relation to the T-Rex's...

I didn't realize Noah wasn't allowed to take babies on board.

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:25 AM
I never said I believe what I believe because the majority said so…And who sounds foolish here? Me, who takes the word of the ridiculously vast majority of scientists…


But you do believe it because the vast majority believe it – is that scientific – following the majority? You appear to be self-contradictory or unsure of what you believe. You certainly have not presented any scientific evidence to support your position about "the boat" and the claims you make. :hmm:

Ron Brown
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:02 AM
But you do believe it because the vast majority believe it – is that scientific – following the majority? You appear to be self-contradictory or unsure of what you believe. You certainly have not presented any scientific evidence to support your position about "the boat" and the claims you make. :hmm:

Science? Who needs science?

Just take a poll, and let the majority decide, this method is superior to science.;)

apothanein kerdos
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:41 AM
And who sounds foolish here? Me, who takes the word of the ridiculously vast majority of scientists, people who have dedicated their lives to expanding their knowledge through trial and error, or you, who claims that a man built a boat large enough for at least tens of thousands (perhaps millions or billions?) of animals to live in?

I'm just wondering where Noah's room was on the Ark in relation to the T-Rex's...

If you're going to deny a story at least do so for the right reasons. To answer your question - you do.

You're pitting scientists against Scripture on this point, which honestly is foolish (for the reasons I've listed in a previous post). Science is constantly changing, non-absolute in its approach, and can say nothing on supernatural involvement. If we were to accept your standard on this then we would likewise have to deny the miracles of Jesus (because scientifically they couldn't occur) as well as Jonah being in the belly of a big fish for three days (which is non-symbolic language, so this did literally occur).

To me it is more plausible to believe in a universal flood than to accept what a bunch of scientists argue.

Like I said, if you're going to reject something at least do it because you've studied it or have good reason to. The reason I lean toward a local flood is because of the linguistic structuring of the passage coupled with the logic of a global flood - not because a bunch of scientists say it couldn't have happened.

Ron Brown
Aug 22nd 2008, 06:50 AM
The reason I lean toward a local flood is because of the linguistic structuring of the passage coupled with the logic of a global flood - not because a bunch of scientists say it couldn't have happened.

Since Noah did not live in North America, how do you explain the geological Global flood evidence in the Grand Canyon rock layers, and the rest of the rock and soil layers around the Globe? Thanks.

teddyv
Aug 22nd 2008, 02:47 PM
Since Noah did not live in North America, how do you explain the geological Global flood evidence in the Grand Canyon rock layers, and the rest of the rock and soil layers around the Globe? Thanks.

Read a high school geology text book.

alongexpectedparty
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:46 PM
Science? Who needs science?

Just take a poll, and let the majority decide, this method is superior to science.;)

This is supposed to be a joke, right?

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:52 PM
I didn't realize Noah wasn't allowed to take babies on board.
You're kidding, right?
Are we just going to be ludicrous in order to defend our arguments now? I'm being told you guys are intellectually superior to me (which I'm still laughing over), please don't start getting silly here.

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:53 PM
Read a high school geology text book.
Well put! :spin:

alongexpectedparty
Aug 22nd 2008, 04:58 PM
Look, no one's gonna convince anyone at this point. My camp is sticking with that there's certain points in Genesis that science has proven could not have happened, and your camp is sticking with trusting the Bible no matter what.
So.....I'm done if you guys are done.

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:12 PM
One more thing I'm curious about. I'm being nice and I want to give everyone the chance to explain this to me.
How did Noah achieve the necessary climate control in the Arc? If he was not just carrying animals from the region, and had a global collection, how were the penguins kept cool and the desert animals kept warm? Many animals need a specific humidity and temperature to survive. Especially amphibians and reptiles. Furthermore, most can not go 53 weeks (or 40 days, whichever you believe) w/o specific foods [impossible to keep the necessary variety of vegetation, insects, mammals, etc on-hand (though I could go into that further if you don't believe)]. Most will not eat in stressful situations. Even today, there are species that do not make it in captivity.

I guess the only argument would be that, "God made it so." But, if he did, why bother with this Arc in the first place?

BOWIE
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:18 PM
Look, no one's gonna convince anyone at this point. My camp is sticking with that there's certain points in Genesis that science has proven could not have happened, and your camp is sticking with trusting the Bible no matter what.
So.....I'm done if you guys are done.
Awww... Stay a little longer. This is fun.
Is it normally like this around here? I mean this debate has been REALLY passionate for a place called, "Bible Forums". :spin: I'm kinda surprised. But, I think it's cool that Christians can talk about the gritty stuff w/o either getting totally insulting or saing that someone is going to hell (though we're bordered both of those areas).

Athanasius
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:37 PM
You're kidding, right?
Are we just going to be ludicrous in order to defend our arguments now? I'm being told you guys are intellectually superior to me (which I'm still laughing over), please don't start getting silly here.

Where have I claimed that I am your intellectual superior? I haven't, don't start putting words in my mouth.

As for my answer, no, I'm not kidding. Where in the text does it say Noah had to bring full grown animals? You do realize that most dinosaurs were the size of chickens, right? I really don't have the time (nor the patience) for the kind of ridiculous attitude alongexpectedparty and yourself are bringing to this thread. It's childish.

You see, I have no problem with the argument. I'd have no problem discussing it, with say, Apothanein Kerdos. The reason being is that he's not going around calling everyone who disagrees with him scientifically ignorant (and purposely so) fundamentalists. Now I know you specifically didn't say this, but alongexpectedparty did... And you're part of 'his' camp (according to him we have camps). It's your attitude, not your argument (for the most part), that I have a problem with.

CanadianSlash
Aug 22nd 2008, 06:37 PM
One more thing I'm curious about. I'm being nice and I want to give everyone the chance to explain this to me.
How did Noah achieve the necessary climate control in the Arc? If he was not just carrying animals from the region, and had a global collection, how were the penguins kept cool and the desert animals kept warm? Many animals need a specific humidity and temperature to survive. Especially amphibians and reptiles. Furthermore, most can not go 53 weeks (or 40 days, whichever you believe) w/o specific foods [impossible to keep the necessary variety of vegetation, insects, mammals, etc on-hand (though I could go into that further if you don't believe)]. Most will not eat in stressful situations. Even today, there are species that do not make it in captivity.

I guess the only argument would be that, "God made it so." But, if he did, why bother with this Arc in the first place?

Well, i'm not sure about the validity of this argument, but, just because it's that way now, doesn't mean it's always been that way. I believe that argument was used somewhere else in this thread too.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 22nd 2008, 08:43 PM
Since Noah did not live in North America, how do you explain the geological Global flood evidence in the Grand Canyon rock layers, and the rest of the rock and soil layers around the Globe? Thanks.

Millions of years of river flow cutting through the rock. I just don't see the scientific evidence for a universal flood. Though different areas have different records of floods, none of it is universal in time or even close.


Read a high school geology text book.

This is what I'm talking about - it's so superior and elitist.


You see, I have no problem with the argument. I'd have no problem discussing it, with say, Apothanein Kerdos. The reason being is that he's not going around calling everyone who disagrees with him scientifically ignorant (and purposely so) fundamentalists. Now I know you specifically didn't say this, but alongexpectedparty did... And you're part of 'his' camp (according to him we have camps). It's your attitude, not your argument (for the most part), that I have a problem with.

Exactly! What's been missed, it seems, is that I actually argue against a universal flood. I have more in common with alex and bowie than I do with those that take the story literally. What I cannot stand is the attitude presented by both of them that if anyone takes Genesis literally then the person must be ignorant in doing so. That's elitist and even unwarranted.

ilovemetal
Aug 23rd 2008, 06:21 AM
dudes i take it literally...or, i did......until i realized i didn't have to...now you've made me have to study a whole nother subject:B

i'll get back to you.

teddyv
Aug 23rd 2008, 09:37 PM
Read a high school geology text book.

This is what I'm talking about - it's so superior and elitist.
Since I originally wrote this, I thought I should respond. It was purely a flippant remark that doesn’t do much good for anyone and looking at the original question posed, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It's also a out of character for my typical posts. For that I apologize. Also I love to talk about geology, and I should have taken that question as an opportunity to do so. I would have replied more or less as A K did here:

Millions of years of river flow cutting through the rock. I just don't see the scientific evidence for a universal flood. Though different areas have different records of floods, none of it is universal in time or even close.




Exactly! What's been missed, it seems, is that I actually argue against a universal flood. I have more in common with alex and bowie than I do with those that take the story literally. What I cannot stand is the attitude presented by both of them that if anyone takes Genesis literally then the person must be ignorant in doing so. That's elitist and even unwarranted.

I would not suggest that taking Genesis literally is ignorant but arguing for a literal event out of ignorance of the evidence that counters the literalist approach should not be acceptable. How many times do I have to read that radiometric dating is all bunk (it’s not) and implied insinuations that there is some cabal of geologists conspiring to make the ages fit to a predetermined conclusion (they're not)?. How many times must I read the same cut and paste arguments from [insert creationist website]? I would venture that many debating using these tired arguments are merely using them because they confirm their pre-existing bias, not because they actually have taken the time to understand the science. If someone has done their homework it will show in how they post and likewise, if they merely parrot a website, it's pretty obvious.

BTW, as a few here may recall, I am a geologist – I did my 4 years at uni and have over 10 years of practical application of the science, though my realm is in the exploration business, rather than academic pursuits. I don't say this to add authority to my words expressed here, just for context.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 10:38 PM
I would not suggest that taking Genesis literally is ignorant but arguing for a literal event out of ignorance of the evidence that counters the literalist approach should not be acceptable. How many times do I have to read that radiometric dating is all bunk (it’s not) and implied insinuations that there is some cabal of geologists conspiring to make the ages fit to a predetermined conclusion (they're not)?. How many times must I read the same cut and paste arguments from [insert creationist website]? I would venture that many debating using these tired arguments are merely using them because they confirm their pre-existing bias, not because they actually have taken the time to understand the science. If someone has done their homework it will show in how they post and likewise, if they merely parrot a website, it's pretty obvious.

BTW, as a few here may recall, I am a geologist – I did my 4 years at uni and have over 10 years of practical application of the science, though my realm is in the exploration business, rather than academic pursuits. I don't say this to add authority to my words expressed here, just for context.

For business? So you're one of those guys causing all the annoying racket encouraging companies to drill for natural gas in my back yard. ;)

I agree somewhat that people who argue for such things have generally not studied the issue unbiasedly. At the same time we have to be prepared for such things. My specialty is philosophy - I can't expect people to automatically know what I'm talking about when I use certain terms (though I am guilty of doing this at times). Likewise, you have to go with the flow and assume some people just haven't studied the issue that much.

teddyv
Aug 25th 2008, 07:43 PM
For business? So you're one of those guys causing all the annoying racket encouraging companies to drill for natural gas in my back yard. ;)

That ain't me. I do hard-rock exploration (metals):D.


I agree somewhat that people who argue for such things have generally not studied the issue unbiasedly. At the same time we have to be prepared for such things. My specialty is philosophy - I can't expect people to automatically know what I'm talking about when I use certain terms (though I am guilty of doing this at times). Likewise, you have to go with the flow and assume some people just haven't studied the issue that much.
[/size]

No argument there.

Cheers.:)

sif elf queen
Aug 26th 2008, 07:18 AM
it seems to me that everyone is off track , is here's some info to help genesis 6: 5 " the lord saw that human beings on the earth were very wicked and that everything they thought was evil. " god loving and kind who saw that only Noah was good would ask him to build a boat he would only spare him and his family. keep in mind that ,the ark was one and half football Fields long that's the size of the ark. now some other info to help : many people believe the ark is ;located in the Ararat mountains of eastern turkey. several explorers have attempted to find the ark's resting place some clam to have seen what could the remnants of the boat but nothing conclusive has been found yet. genesis 8:3-4 also genesis 7 21-24 read it please

Lordistruth
Aug 26th 2008, 03:38 PM
Was Noah born without original sin? The bible describes him as perfect,

sif elf queen
Aug 26th 2008, 05:27 PM
no he was born the same as us just he did what was good and right, he never went against god. but keep in mind his family was wicked.or at least ham was , before noah died he put a curse on canaan to son of ham.

Lordistruth
Aug 26th 2008, 05:30 PM
Gen. 6:9 "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Does not this mean that he was without original Sin? Perfect means nothing flawed and nothing bad. Does this include original sin?:P