PDA

View Full Version : Literal Noah's Ark



RRWick
May 9th 2007, 02:00 AM
Does anybody believe that the Noah and ark story is literally true? Or do you think it's a metaphor or parable or something?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 02:02 AM
I believe Noah's ark and the Flood was a literally true historic event.

Quickened
May 9th 2007, 02:24 AM
I guarentee you that the majority of the Christians on this board believe the bible word for word.

IamRyan
May 9th 2007, 02:55 AM
Of course. Many things in the Bible are either explained for the parables they are or have a somewhat easy explanation. I couldn't think of any metaphors or any symbolism that could come from this story that is so in detail with days, measurments, etc.

RRWick
May 9th 2007, 03:40 AM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

Whispering Grace
May 9th 2007, 02:18 PM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26

Jemma Ash
May 9th 2007, 02:43 PM
Jesus spoke in parables but in the old testament they are not just stories...they are history...

mikeynash
May 9th 2007, 02:47 PM
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26

I love that verse.

th1bill
May 9th 2007, 03:30 PM
God said it, I believe it and that settles it!

Godisnumber1
May 9th 2007, 03:34 PM
:agree: with bill :)

Quickened
May 9th 2007, 03:41 PM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

I dont want to deter you from posting but i am sure that if you are really seeking this answer from a Christian that there are numerous creationist websites that could address this far more indepth then alot of us could.

That is if you are actually serious about that. :)

Righton
May 9th 2007, 03:56 PM
I believe it to be true.

However, I do not believe that all animals in existence today are direct descendants from the animals on the ark.

One may believe that to be the case, but it's not necessarily said so in scripture. That's a juxtaposition but it's not necessarily so.

If He created flora and fauna prior to the Great Flood, He could have easily created more after the Flood. I do not adhere to the belief that all life began at a point and it has evolved since. If it had one beginning, it could have had another. And another. And another.

Frances
May 9th 2007, 04:00 PM
Does anybody believe that the Noah and ark story is literally true? Or do you think it's a metaphor or parable or something?
I believe it is literally true and an event in history - as is the rest of the Bible.

Paul_born_again
May 9th 2007, 08:22 PM
RRWick, check out some of these sites and pages:

Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp)
How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp)
worldwideflood.com (http://www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm)

DSK
May 9th 2007, 08:56 PM
Does anybody believe that the Noah and ark story is literally true? Or do you think it's a metaphor or parable or something?

The story of Noah and the ark is a true event, which actually occurred, even Jesus thought it was true. Here is what Jesus said:

Matthew 24:37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
Matthew 24:38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
Matthew 24:39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

Luke 17:26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Other New Testament mention of the flood of Noah's day

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

1 Peter 3:20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:

Finally, there are many cultures that have flood legends, concerning a event described as a global flood. All of these legends from various cultures and ethnic groups compares favorably with the Biblical account of the flood in Noahs day, and each legend mentions how only a handful of people were saved by a boat of some sort. IF you want to research this further, just type in the keywords "flood legend" in a Google Search.

IamRyan
May 10th 2007, 12:26 AM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

How could it be possible for the sun to stand still for a day? How could it be possible for a whale to swallow a man and keep him in it's belly for 3 days? But they all happened, and yes(just as above), all things are possible with God.

aliensyndm
May 10th 2007, 12:50 AM
I believe it to be true.

However, I do not believe that all animals in existence today are direct descendants from the animals on the ark.

One may believe that to be the case, but it's not necessarily said so in scripture. That's a juxtaposition but it's not necessarily so.

If He created flora and fauna prior to the Great Flood, He could have easily created more after the Flood. I do not adhere to the belief that all life began at a point and it has evolved since. If it had one beginning, it could have had another. And another. And another.

Why on earth isn't it possible ? An evolutionist believes every single living organism on the planet came from one orginal single celled life form !

Take two pigeons if you breed and breed pigeons and well any other animal you will end up with a complete variety of differnt kinds of pigeons.
Look at all the species of dogs we have for example, tonnes.
Thing is you only need to start with two dogs to get all the difference species. The bible said take two of each KIND, seven pairs of some I think it was. What is a kind ? Probably not the same as species.
Do the zebra and the horse have a common ancestor ? Possibly they do but it was a horse !

Plus we are dealing with an omnipotent creator who spoke the universe into existence. I am quite sure getting a load of animals on a boat isn't too much of a problem for him.

Also ....


20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 6:20

God says two of every sort shall come unto thee.....he doesn't say go and find them. Big difference.

Also Genesis 7:1 in king james translation says...


1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

God said come.......not go. If he said come he must be on the ark.
If he wasn't on the ark he would have said go.
OK yeah God is like everywhere and stuff but you get the point.
I notice in some translations it has God saying go rather than come and I think it's an important difference although it might not seem like it at first.

Acicular Oculus
May 10th 2007, 03:17 AM
I'm curious, if the Ark couldn't hold the genetic version of every land animal, then how are evolution and genetic diversification even possible?

Joel.

DSK
May 10th 2007, 11:51 AM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

It wasn't necessary that mature full grown animals be taken aboard the ark, smaller infant sized animals would have sufficed, and taken up much less room. A bear cub takes up a lot less space than a full grown adult bear. A baby elephant takes up less cargo space than a full grown adult elephant, etc, etc.

TSP
May 10th 2007, 03:12 PM
B.A.S.E institute look them up. I guarantee you it will blow your mind. In Mount Ararat they found a petrified front end of a boat, a lot more still hasn’t been exhumed yet. Every so far matches up to the boat, and the best part is they can’t seem to identify the wood (by the way does anyone know what gopher wood is? No either do they!) I just checked there website it is down right now so you can check this out http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/has-noahs-ark-been-found/20060629173309990001 (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/has-noahs-ark-been-found/20060629173309990001)

RRWick
May 10th 2007, 10:07 PM
Here's a question: after the flood was over and Noah let the animals off, what did the carnivores eat? Any kill would have caused an extinction.

Parax
May 10th 2007, 10:13 PM
All this stuff about 450 feet! It's so rigid - God is the God who made the minds who eventually came up with the Tardis and He knew about it first...

calidog
May 10th 2007, 10:38 PM
Does anybody believe that the Noah and ark story is literally true? Or do you think it's a metaphor or parable or something?Literally true.

calidog
May 10th 2007, 10:40 PM
Here's a question: after the flood was over and Noah let the animals off, what did the carnivores eat? Any kill would have caused an extinction.
The cats in my neighborhood keep finding mice to kill :)

RRWick
May 10th 2007, 11:53 PM
The cats in my neighborhood keep finding mice to kill :)

Perhaps you missed my point... Right after the ark let its animals loose, there would only be two mice. Killing either one would prevent the mice from repopulating the planet.

JesusisGod
May 11th 2007, 03:24 AM
Hi RRWick.
The Bible says that God created man and beast vegetarian. It is unwise to assume that "right after" they left the boat they wanted cheeseburgers.

TEITZY
May 11th 2007, 03:50 AM
Here's a question: after the flood was over and Noah let the animals off, what did the carnivores eat? Any kill would have caused an extinction.

Bible doesn't say what they ate initially. There certainly would have been plenty of dead animals ouside the ark killed during the flood so this could be one source of meat. There may have been some supernatural delay or restraint by God put upon the meat eaters. Also many of the smaller prey animals probably reproduced on the ark and so there may have been more than two of each that came off. With the low number of apex predators and the practically endless amount of space for animals to spread out into this would also provide some protection for smaller prey animals and time for numbers to build up.

Cheers
Leigh

calidog
May 11th 2007, 01:44 PM
They brought some for food
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

YoungLink
May 11th 2007, 08:06 PM
Killing either one would prevent the mice from repopulating the planet.

I'm not sure how long it takes mice to reproduce, but I think there would be more than 2 mice even by the time they left the ark.
The smaller animals would reproduce quickly which would give them a head start when they got off the ark.

aliensyndm
May 11th 2007, 11:02 PM
How long were they on the ark ? 13 months was it ? A quick google and I see gestation period for mice is 19-21 days and they can become sexually active a month after birth. Plenty mice for starters I would say.
Bigger animals usually have longer gestation periods and won't breed as quickly. That's fine, plenty smaller animals for prey and less big animals so they don't wipe them out.

Besides surely you could ask an evolutionist the same question ? Did ants evolve and then ant-eaters evolved to eat the ants ?
Oh look this insect has just evolved wings......CHOMP....oh that's the end of that insect then eh, we'll have to evolve wings again eh.

Tanya~
Jun 20th 2007, 01:05 AM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

The ark was a 3-dimensional structure. It measured 43,500 cubic meters.

The Bible doesn't actually say that a pair of every land animal on the planet was taken on board, but that a pair of 'every kind' of unclean animal, and 7 of every kind of clean animal was taken on board (3 mated pairs, plus one extra).

This means that it wasn't necessary for Noah to take on a pair of dingos, a pair of wolves, a pair of dogs, etc., but only that he needed a pair of the 'dog kind' whatever that was at the time. It is clear from breeding observations and from genetic studies and that a range of variation can arise from a single breeding pair. The only thing that was needed was that some of every "kind" was on board. Whatever a "kind" was, it certainly isn't comparable to our current classification we call "species." The finch is a kind of bird, but there are very many species of finches.

After the ark came to rest, the animal pairs went out and 'were fruitful and multiplied' and a great diversity resulted from each kind, many of which are extinct today.

More information on these types of questions can be found at www.Answersingenesis.org

BlessedAngel
Jun 20th 2007, 08:41 PM
How could it be possible for a 450 foot long wooden boat to house a pair of every land animal on the planet?

Think about it there was probably not as many animals as there are now. There wasn't all kinds of breeds of dogs and different types of cats that have just been created in the past 500 years. The animals were probably not full grown, because why would Noah take old animals that are going to die soon??

DAISHI
Jun 21st 2007, 05:38 AM
As a sidebar, anybody who's interested in front loading hypothesis sees an overlap here. Basically saying that there's a ton of genetic coding in anticipation of future diversification, thereby necessitating a creator while allowing for certain evolutionary drifts.

freshstart
Jun 21st 2007, 08:25 AM
while i beleive that the creation story is not literal, i beleive that everything after that is literal!

Soj
Jun 21st 2007, 08:45 AM
All this stuff about 450 feet! It's so rigid - God is the God who made the minds who eventually came up with the Tardis and He knew about it first...There's nothing wrong with being rigid about the size of the ark, the exact measurements of it are preserved in scripture:

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

I was involved in a project several years back which invloved making a model of Noah's Ark and discoved that the thing (the ark, not my model) was huge, something like 2 1/2 football fields in length!

Yep, a literal event in history alright, and recorded in a Book so there's no doubting it.:)

Paul_born_again
Jun 22nd 2007, 04:25 PM
while i beleive that the creation story is not literal, i beleive that everything after that is literal!

And how to you decide when the "literal" part of the Bible starts?

I believe the Bible is literal from the very first word.

ChristPower
Jun 22nd 2007, 05:42 PM
And how to you decide when the "literal" part of the Bible starts?

I believe the Bible is literal from the very first word.

I agree! If you think part of the Bible isn't literal, then what is keeping the rest of it from not being literal? :hmm: It just doesn't make any sense!

IamRyan
Jun 22nd 2007, 08:00 PM
while i beleive that the creation story is not literal, i beleive that everything after that is literal!

Don't get caught up in this ruse. Many Catholics at my school, who I say are far from even that, pick and choose when to decide what is meant to be taken literally and symbolically. He clearly says that there were 7 literal mornings and evenings. Now if I'm right, I don't think that a morning and evening can happen more than once in a day.

Jukebox Girl
Jun 22nd 2007, 11:51 PM
I was having a discussion with my uncle about this the other day, and he came up with a great answer. He was saying that if he went to heaven and asked God "where's Adam?" and God said "Adam wasn't a real person, he merely represented man", he's not going to say "This is an outrage" and storm out of heaven. This is the way I feel as well. While I chose to take the Biblical stories of creation and the Ark literally, it's not a big deal to me if another Christian doesn't.

th1bill
Jun 23rd 2007, 03:17 AM
Here's a question: after the flood was over and Noah let the animals off, what did the carnivores eat? Any kill would have caused an extinction.

..To run with this premise one must first either eliminate God, the God of all creation with un limited power and ability or at the very least limit His power, man creating God in his image. If we go back to Genesis there was no death until sin entered into the world and that would necessitate Lions and other meat eaters to have been eaters of grass or other plant life, so God, the God that spoke and all the univeres leapt into existence could not have taken care of this problem?
..For just a moment I'd like to be serious now. Dinosaurs, all seem willing to admit that they from the same family as the lizards of today. Salamanders are a normally very small lizard here in SE Texas, growing to about four inches in length for the larger ones and for the shinny brown with a long black stripe down each side it is very common to see adults of this length here.
..For just a moment remember that there was no death at all before sin and two different dinosaurs are mentioned in scripture before the flood. Men lived for over 900 years, quite commonly before the flood and there is no reason to believe that the lizards as well as all other plant eating animals (all of the animals, including man?) did not live similar or even the same life span. Man was a vegetarian and there absolutely no reason to believe that any other animal was not also.
..The elusive point, one of those very nice, shiny brown salamanders took up residence in a pile of fire wood stacked by myself that lasted well over six years. It gets hot, not cold, in SE Texas and when I finally disposed of the remaining 1/4 of the stack, there was the salamander, safe and very well fed by the bugs attracted by the rotting bottom layer of the stack. He was well over a foot, I estimated 16 to 18 inches long, a monster by local standards. It is accepted fact and one witnessed by me that lizards never cease to grow until they die.
..One needs always to consider, carefully, the known facts and consider all the evidence presented before jumping to conclusions. To begin with there were as many as fourteen of each species of the clean on board. (When counting heads in that day only the male was counted and God commanded they be taken male and female, 7 of each clean animals.) I do not expect this truth to make a convert out of you but I do hope it will cause you to challenge the scriptures more fervently. All the men recorded to have dropped the superficial damnation of the scriptures and set out to earnestly disprove them have converted to believers, perhaps one day I'll call you brother?

th1bill
Jun 23rd 2007, 03:21 AM
They brought some for food
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

I'm sorry I did not read further before answering his post, you have all done so very well and certainly do not need my input.

OldChurchGuy
Jun 23rd 2007, 04:19 AM
Does anybody believe that the Noah and ark story is literally true? Or do you think it's a metaphor or parable or something?

Taking a different view, I think the story is symbolic. There seems to be other stories of a remnant surviving a great flood that pre-date Noah such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Consider that clans, tribes, or civilzations tend to stay close to a water source. The most convenient water source is a river. Eventually all rivers flood. If your world is about 10 or 20 square miles and you don't have access to the weather channel, when a big flood appears, the natural conclusion to make is that the flood was everywhere. Particularly when you talk with others who all say the same thing about how wide ranging the flood was.

OldChurchGuy

Paul_born_again
Jun 23rd 2007, 01:47 PM
Eventually all rivers flood. If your world is about 10 or 20 square miles and you don't have access to the weather channel, when a big flood appears, the natural conclusion to make is that the flood was everywhere. Particularly when you talk with others who all say the same thing about how wide ranging the flood was.

The concept of a local flood is incredibly flawed in my opinion. It seems to me that all the "evidence" for it is based on personal opinion and personal subjective "logic" and not based on the evidence found in Scripture.

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 cover the tops of mountains by over 20 meters (Genesis 7:20), and yet other areas (20 miles away, in your example) remain dry?


Extremely Important and often forgotten:
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.

aliensyndm
Jun 23rd 2007, 10:24 PM
If it's just a local flood how come the flood "legends" are to be found in so many different cultures which are continents apart ?

I was reading the gospels and I came to the conclusion that the bit about Jesus dying on the cross and coming back to life was symbolic and didn't really happen. All those miracles were symbolic too. :thumbsup:

OldChurchGuy
Jun 24th 2007, 11:48 AM
The concept of a local flood is incredibly flawed in my opinion. It seems to me that all the "evidence" for it is based on personal opinion and personal subjective "logic" and not based on the evidence found in Scripture.

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 cover the tops of mountains by over 20 meters (Genesis 7:20), and yet other areas (20 miles away, in your example) remain dry?


Extremely Important and often forgotten:
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.

The opinion expressed seems based on the story in Genesis being interpreted as irrefutable fact. From a literal interpretation of the flood story in Genesis, the questions raised are valid. Since I don't interpret the flood story as a literal event, I can't answer the questions.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Paul_born_again
Jun 24th 2007, 06:41 PM
Since I don't interpret the flood story as a literal event, I can't answer the questions.


I understand your viewpoint, but I'm still confused as to the reasoning behind your interpretation of the flood as being symbolic.

Are the reasons based on your interpretations of scripture, or are the reasons based on science? If it's the latter, I can give you many articles, essays, resources, scientist's testimony, etc, that prove that the scientific evidence of a global flood described in Genesis is valid.

Also, since you believe it is symbolic: what is the symbolic interpretation of Genesis 9:11 and Genesis 9:15 where God promises to never again destroy the world with a flood?

IamRyan
Jun 25th 2007, 04:05 AM
If it's just a local flood how come the flood "legends" are to be found in so many different cultures which are continents apart ?

I was reading the gospels and I came to the conclusion that the bit about Jesus dying on the cross and coming back to life was symbolic and didn't really happen. All those miracles were symbolic too. :thumbsup:

Wait wait wait wait. Your kidding right? If you are not, please don't hesitate to tell me what the symbolism is of the only reason we are able to have eternal life?

dljc
Jun 25th 2007, 04:22 AM
Wait wait wait wait. Your kidding right? If you are not, please don't hesitate to tell me what the symbolism is of the only reason we are able to have eternal life?He's just kidding. By the way everyone, the OP of this thread has said his farewell.

IamRyan
Jun 26th 2007, 06:22 PM
Whew, that's good.