Did Jesus believe in a literal Noah's Ark and Flood?

[Amaziah]

So we must not look like anything at all like Abraham (175 yrs old), or Methuselah (969 yrs old). How am I going to recognize them and Jesus me? Did God not make us all in his image? Did Crist not come down in our image, so much so that he was recognized as being human?

The transitional argument does not work for me because it does not make sense in light of what God has done and said. He didn't make us in the image of apes or a microbes ... we are made in His image. Call me ignorant all you want but these are some of the things that evolution fails to answer. But it is okay to dish the Bible because evolution is measurable and nothing is valid if it takes some faith.

How do you know a chair will hold you unless you sit in it? Science would prove it mathematically which is very reasonable, but how do you know for sure unless you sit in it? Maybe it has a crack in it's legs and it breaks under your weight? It takes some faith even in light of the science.

The only transitional evidence evolution seems to provide, and I hear, is things not related to man. I need to see transitional evidence of man. By some of your theories, Abraham should look vastly different than from me today and God only knows what Methuselah must have looked like not to mention Jesus or God Himself.

There is a diffence between mankind and animalkind and angelkind ... God instituted the difference.

If people want to disregard the Bible as a book of fables then that is your choice ... but things will be made clear when the Lord Jesus appears and every knee will bow before Him. What matters is are you sure of your standing before God? You cannot accept Christ and refute the Bible ... it does not jive.

When this world is done, and it is coming to an end, will you live with Christ or live eternally seperated from Him in torment? Are you willing to stake your life on your belief? Could there be a chance that the Bible is true of what it says and what Jesus even says of its truth? There is a lot riding on your choice.

Do not mean to argue ignorantly, my apologies. I am interested in people knowing Christ as I know Him. I love all of God's creation and that includes all of you.

 

[OdwinOddball]

So we must not look like anything at all like Abraham (175 yrs old), or Methuselah (969 yrs old). How am I going to recognize them and Jesus me? Did God not make us all in his image? Did Crist not come down in our image, so much so that he was recognized as being human?


The transitional argument does not work for me because it does not make sense in light of what God has done and said. He didn't make us in the image of apes or a microbes ... we are made in His image. Call me ignorant all you want but these are some of the things that evolution fails to answer. But it is okay to dish the Bible because evolution is measurable and nothing is valid if it takes some faith.

Thats just it though, you do not know what god's image is. You have imagined him as a human being, but the scripture could just as easily been referring not to the physical image, but your soul. Or it could mean that your god is a big peice of DNA. or it could be, and most likely is, just a figure of speech and is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible is filled with parables and analogies, you have no trouble with the Parables spoken by Jesus, yet you find it so difficult to believe that a creation story written down by people(who didnt even understand the difference between our heart and our brain) could be methaphor and not literal?

How do you know a chair will hold you unless you sit in it? Science would prove it mathematically which is very reasonable, but how do you know for sure unless you sit in it? Maybe it has a crack in it's legs and it breaks under your weight? It takes some faith even in light of the science.

Thats not faith, it is experience. I have sat in chairs all my life. They have 99% of the time not broken when I sat on them. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that the next chair I sit in will hold me as well. There is no faith there, it is a logical assumption that being a chair it will sucede in its function as a chair.

The only transitional evidence evolution seems to provide, and I hear, is things not related to man. I need to see transitional evidence of man. By some of your theories, Abraham should look vastly different than from me today and God only knows what Methuselah must have looked like not to mention Jesus or God Himself.

There is a diffence between mankind and animalkind and angelkind ... God instituted the difference.

No, Abraham would only look different if you follow the twisted view of evolution proposed by various creationists. If Abraham actually existed, he lived only a few thousand years ago. This is not anywhere near enough time for him to be "vastly different" than us. Evolution takes a very long amount of time to cause major changes. We are not talking 6 thousand years, but tens of thousands to millions of years for change on average. This is where you're poor understanding of how evolution works is hindering you.

This also shows when you make statements like the above about transitional evidence for man. If you had studied evolution at all, you would have seen the countless fossils we have from various moments in our evolution.

Heres a place for you to start if you want to see and read the evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

If people want to disregard the Bible as a book of fables then that is your choice ... but things will be made clear when the Lord Jesus appears and every knee will bow before Him. What matters is are you sure of your standing before God? You cannot accept Christ and refute the Bible ... it does not jive.

The numerous Christians that accept Theistic Evolution expose the falsehood of the above statements. It is true you can not take the Bible as literal and innerant in every word and accept evolution. But when a book such as the Bible has such obvious methaphorical undertones, it is obvious it was not meant to be taken literally. But this is a subject I would have to let you discuss with a Theistic Evolutionist.

When this world is done, and it is coming to an end, will you live with Christ or live eternally seperated from Him in torment? Are you willing to stake your life on your belief? Could there be a chance that the Bible is true of what it says and what Jesus even says of its truth? There is a lot riding on your choice.

I am quite willing to put my life on the line for my lack of belief. There is no evidence that I am wrong. The evidence for the existance of dieties is currently zero. Untill that changes there is no reason to believe in them.

Do not mean to argue ignorantly, my apologies. I am interested in people knowing Christ as I know Him. I love all of God's creation and that includes all of you.

Ignorance is a correctable issue. All you need to do is actually read about what evolution is and how it works from people who actually understand it, and not those that chose to dismiss it because they failed to understand it. The links above will get you started, or visit the Cre/Evo Archive thread sticked at the top of this forum.

 

[Loudmouth]

The transitional argument does not work for me because it does not make sense in light of what God has done and said. He didn't make us in the image of apes or a microbes ... we are made in His image.

Since man is an ape we can then ignore the Bible since it is wrong. This is the problem with Religion opposing Science.

Call me ignorant all you want but these are some of the things that evolution fails to answer.

That is why the theory is considered to be incomplete and tentative. No one expects the current theory to make it through the next 20 years without some changes.

The only transitional evidence evolution seems to provide, and I hear, is things not related to man. I need to see transitional evidence of man.

Then I would suggest the following websites:

http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

By some of your theories, Abraham should look vastly different than from me today and God only knows what Methuselah must have looked like not to mention Jesus or God Himself.

Which theorie are these? From my reading, anatomically modern humans have been around for more than 30,000 years.

There is a diffence between mankind and animalkind and angelkind ... God instituted the difference.

And those differences would be . . .?

If people want to disregard the Bible as a book of fables then that is your choice ... but things will be made clear when the Lord Jesus appears and every knee will bow before Him. What matters is are you sure of your standing before God? You cannot accept Christ and refute the Bible ... it does not jive.

So science should wait for the return of a deity before constructing theories? Doesn't sound like a good way of doing things to me.

Are you willing to stake your life on your belief?

This is nothing more than Pascal's wager. I only disbelieve in one more deity than you do. Looks like we are both in trouble.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

So we must not look like anything at all like Abraham (175 yrs old), or Methuselah (969 yrs old). How am I going to recognize them and Jesus me? Did God not make us all in his image? Did Crist not come down in our image, so much so that he was recognized as being human?

No all was said, was that science has no real way of knowing what a 900 yr old human would look like except to extrapolate. No fossils or remains have been found that support the idea that someone could live this long. What does a man look like in god's eye?

The transitional argument does not work for me because it does not make sense in light of what God has done and said. He didn't make us in the image of apes or a microbes ... we are made in His image. Call me ignorant all you want but these are some of the things that evolution fails to answer. But it is okay to dish the Bible because evolution is measurable and nothing is valid if it takes some faith.

Have you got anything at all other than a belief that god is something in your mind to show us what god looks like, why do you believe that god must have some physical appearance similar to human beings?

How do you know a chair will hold you unless you sit in it? Science would prove it mathematically which is very reasonable, but how do you know for sure unless you sit in it? Maybe it has a crack in it's legs and it breaks under your weight? It takes some faith even in light of the science.

A crack in a leg is well within the realm of physics, miracles are not. If science says the leg should not break, and it does, then we say we don't know for now, this is very different than goddidit.

The only transitional evidence evolution seems to provide, and I hear, is things not related to man. I need to see transitional evidence of man. By some of your theories, Abraham should look vastly different than from me today and God only knows what Methuselah must have looked like not to mention Jesus or God Himself.

Again, why this idea that god has to have the physical appearance of a human being in our particular space. Is god so small that he only relates to human beings?

There is a diffence between mankind and animalkind and angelkind ... God instituted the difference.

If people want to disregard the Bible as a book of fables then that is your choice ... but things will be made clear when the Lord Jesus appears and every knee will bow before Him. What matters is are you sure of your standing before God? You cannot accept Christ and refute the Bible ... it does not jive.

So. I am sure of my standing before your god, thus I have no problem

When this world is done, and it is coming to an end, will you live with Christ or live eternally seperated from Him in torment? Are you willing to stake your life on your belief? Could there be a chance that the Bible is true of what it says and what Jesus even says of its truth? There is a lot riding on your choice.

Sure, there might be but fear of the future is the torturers argument for compliance and so rules out the god you hypothesize.

Do not mean to argue ignorantly, my apologies. I am interested in people knowing Christ as I know Him. I love all of God's creation and that includes all of you.

We do not argue ignorantly, we argue rationally.

 

[Amaziah]

Thats just it though, you do not know what god's image is. You have imagined him as a human being, but the scripture could just as easily been referring not to the physical image, but your soul. Or it could mean that your god is a big peice of DNA. or it could be, and most likely is, just a figure of speech and is not meant to be taken literally. The Bible is filled with parables and analogies, you have no trouble with the Parables spoken by Jesus, yet you find it so difficult to believe that a creation story written down by people(who didnt even understand the difference between our heart and our brain) could be methaphor and not literal?



Thats not faith, it is experience. I have sat in chairs all my life. They have 99% of the time not broken when I sat on them. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that the next chair I sit in will hold me as well. There is no faith there, it is a logical assumption that being a chair it will sucede in its function as a chair.



No, Abraham would only look different if you follow the twisted view of evolution proposed by various creationists. If Abraham actually existed, he lived only a few thousand years ago. This is not anywhere near enough time for him to be "vastly different" than us. Evolution takes a very long amount of time to cause major changes. We are not talking 6 thousand years, but tens of thousands to millions of years for change on average. This is where you're poor understanding of how evolution works is hindering you.

This also shows when you make statements like the above about transitional evidence for man. If you had studied evolution at all, you would have seen the countless fossils we have from various moments in our evolution.

Heres a place for you to start if you want to see and read the evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php



The numerous Christians that accept Theistic Evolution expose the falsehood of the above statements. It is true you can not take the Bible as literal and innerant in every word and accept evolution. But when a book such as the Bible has such obvious methaphorical undertones, it is obvious it was not meant to be taken literally. But this is a subject I would have to let you discuss with a Theistic Evolutionist.



I am quite willing to put my life on the line for my lack of belief. There is no evidence that I am wrong. The evidence for the existance of dieties is currently zero. Untill that changes there is no reason to believe in them.



Ignorance is a correctable issue. All you need to do is actually read about what evolution is and how it works from people who actually understand it, and not those that chose to dismiss it because they failed to understand it. The links above will get you started, or visit the Cre/Evo Archive thread sticked at the top of this forum.

Well I guess the Bible is all metaphorical and was not meant to be taken literally. No room for God and His Holy Spirit to operate.

An assumption operates on some level of faith.

Tens of thousands of years? Sounds like a hokee and convienient excuse to buy time for the theory to work to me. It sounds like more of a leap of faith than to simply believe that God created and passed on His story, by the Holy Spirit to men who wrote as guided by the Spirit.

I guess I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jase]

Well I guess the Bible is all metaphorical and was not meant to be taken literally. No room for God and His Holy Spirit to operate.

An assumption operates on some level of faith.

Tens of thousands of years? Sounds like a hokee and convienient excuse to buy time for the theory to work to me. It sounds like more of a leap of faith than to simply believe that God created and passed on His story, by the Holy Spirit to men who wrote as guided by the Spirit.

I guess I will have to agree to disagree.

Why does the entire Bible have to be literal for it to be useful? Even you don't take the entire Bible literally, and yet you hold strongly to it.

 

[Amaziah]

No all was said, was that science has no real way of knowing what a 900 yr old human would look like except to extrapolate. No fossils or remains have been found that support the idea that someone could live this long. What does a man look like in god's eye?


Have you got anything at all other than a belief that god is something in your mind to show us what god looks like, why do you believe that god must have some physical appearance similar to human beings?


A crack in a leg is well within the realm of physics, miracles are not. If science says the leg should not break, and it does, then we say we don't know for now, this is very different than goddidit.


Again, why this idea that god has to have the physical appearance of a human being in our particular space. Is god so small that he only relates to human beings?




So. I am sure of my standing before your god, thus I have no problem


Sure, there might be but fear of the future is the torturers argument for compliance and so rules out the god you hypothesize.



We do not argue ignorantly, we argue rationally.

You seem to have no belief or little knowledge of the Bible so sorry to say this would seem to me, anyway, to be a pointless discussion.

I need to see evidence of a transitional man in order to put my faith in evolutions claims and I do not have the thousands or millions of years to wait for an answer. I have to ready myself for when Christ returns.

 

[Loudmouth]

An assumption operates on some level of faith.

Every assumption rests on a level of experience and evidence. When you step on your brake pedal in your car you assume that the car is going to slow down. That's a pretty good assumption, one that is good 99.999% of the time. When you wake up in the morning you assume that you and your bed will be firmly planted on the floor. That is also a pretty good assumption.

Science uses this same type of assumption. Each and every assumption is tested and testable. For example, the observations gleaned from the Oklo reactors tested the assumption that radioactive decay was the same billions of years ago. The assumption was found to be correct. The same assumption can be tested by looking at supernova.

Tens of thousands of years? Sounds like a hokee and convienient excuse to buy time for the theory to work to me.

Actually, it was widely known that the Earth was millions of years old before Darwin ever came up with the theory of evolution.

It sounds like more of a leap of faith than to simply believe that God created and passed on His story, by the Holy Spirit to men who wrote as guided by the Spirit.

No leap of faith is required when you have evidence.

 

[vitodabona]

You seem to have no belief or little knowledge of the Bible so sorry to say this would seem to me, anyway, to be a pointless discussion.

Jase Time to turn in your Kilt.

I need to see evidence of a transitional man in order to put my faith in evolutions claims and I do not have the thousands or millions of years to wait for an answer. I have to ready myself for when Christ returns.

When is Ragnarök again?

 

[JohnR7]

That's a pretty good assumption, one that is good 99.999% of the time.

When God says I will not forsake you nor abandon you, that is 100% accurate. He will always be there for us.

Hebrews 13:5b for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

This is one of the many, many advantages to being a child of God, He is always there for us.

 

[Amaziah]

Why does the entire Bible have to be literal for it to be useful? Even you don't take the entire Bible literally, and yet you hold strongly to it.

Yes there are metaphorical components (statements, uphemisms, etc...) I agree used for a purpose to help explain a deeper truth. But if you look closely and read the Bible closely there is nothing that it speaks about that is untrue. Read it in context with when it was written and what God's purpose was (Redemption of man and making the presense of God known to humanity) it is true.

All the prophecies of the prophets have come true expect for those in Revelation relating to the events surrounding and involving the return of Christ.

The Bible is not as specific as science, because it is not a science text book, and science is not its purpose. It is not an all encompassing history book, but it is a history book in that it tells the story of Redemptive History, God's attempts and successes at redeeming all His creation.

When the Bible says God created ... I believe that God did because of what He has done in my life and others, historically and presently. Do I know exactly how? No, but I know He created and in what order. If I discount that God created the earth, I discount the witness and testimoney of Christ and Christianity falls apart. To discount God created causes me to question as to whether or not Christ is real, if He lived, died and rose again. If God did not create, Jesus did not die for me and I will be eternally damned and seperated from God (I referenced this earlier in the thread). This is why I hold to the Bible so strongly. To deny creation, denies Christ's integrity which leads to, eventually, Christ still in the grave and all of creation condemned.

 

[Loudmouth]

When God says I will not forsake you nor abandon you, that is 100% accurate. He will always be there for us.

What does this have to do with the age of the Earth or Evolution? And why is it 100% accurate? Because you say so? If I said Gulliver's Travels was 100% accurate this wouldn't make Lilliputians suddenly appear.

This is one of the many, many advantages to being a child of God, He is always there for us.

That is your belief, and I respect it. However, science deals in evidence, not belief.

 

[Amaziah]

Every assumption rests on a level of experience and evidence. When you step on your brake pedal in your car you assume that the car is going to slow down. That's a pretty good assumption, one that is good 99.999% of the time. When you wake up in the morning you assume that you and your bed will be firmly planted on the floor. That is also a pretty good assumption.

Science uses this same type of assumption. Each and every assumption is tested and testable. For example, the observations gleaned from the Oklo reactors tested the assumption that radioactive decay was the same billions of years ago. The assumption was found to be correct. The same assumption can be tested by looking at supernova.



Actually, it was widely known that the Earth was millions of years old before Darwin ever came up with the theory of evolution.



No leap of faith is required when you have evidence.

But you have faith that your assumption will be correct. You cannot see your breaks in operation when you press the brake pedal, but you assume, by faith and experience, that the brakes will work. I have faith in God because I have experienced His work in my life and others.

 

[JohnR7]

And why is it 100% accurate? Because you say so?

It is not based on what I say. It is based on the Bible and what God says. All I can do is give my witness and testimony that God has ALWAYS been there for me. We do not live in a perfect universe but God is perfect and we are told that we can be perfect also.

2 Tim. 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God says to be perfect. He would not tell us to be something that He does not provide the way for us to do what He tells us to do and be what He tells us to be.

That is your belief, and I respect it. However, science deals in evidence, not belief.

Well, like I said: God is always there, 100% of the time. So there must be some way to test that. God is as consistant as consistant can be. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He does not change.

Also God is no respector of persons. He does not favor one person over another. What He does for one, He will do for everyone.

 

[JohnR7]

but you assume, by faith and experience, that the brakes will work.

The brakes do not always work though. With God He is always there, 100% of the time.

In fact it is very difficult to get the breaks to work without the power assist. If your engine stalls out, they will stop you if you press hard enough, but it is difficult to press hard enough to get them to work. Older people run into problems with their brakes sometimes and crash into things.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you have faith that your assumption will be correct. You cannot see your breaks in operation when you press the brake pedal, but you assume, by faith and experience, that the brakes will work.

I have evidence from experimentation and scientific theories that friction between the drum and caliper will slow the car down. I have faith that this friction will be applied when I press on the brake pedal. That is the difference between faith and evidence.

I have faith in God because I have experienced His work in my life and others.

And if someone says the same for a Hindu or Greek god does that mean that they exist?

 

[Loudmouth]

The brakes do not always work though.

And when brakes fail it is not because a scientific theory or assumption is wrong. They fail because of mechanical wear, improper calculations, or problems in the manufacture of the brakes. If the brakes fail do we blame the assumptions in scientific theories?

With God He is always there, 100% of the time.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

In fact it is very difficult to get the breaks to work without the power assist. If your engine stalls out, they will stop you if you press hard enough, but it is difficult to press hard enough to get them to work. Older people run into problems with their brakes sometimes and crash into things.

Is this due to using assumptions in scientific theories?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Well I guess the Bible is all metaphorical and was not meant to be taken literally. No room for God and His Holy Spirit to operate.

An assumption operates on some level of faith.

Tens of thousands of years? Sounds like a hokee and convienient excuse to buy time for the theory to work to me. It sounds like more of a leap of faith than to simply believe that God created and passed on His story, by the Holy Spirit to men who wrote as guided by the Spirit.

I guess I will have to agree to disagree.

You are welcome to disagree, if and only if you do so on the basis of factual information. By stating things such "Tens of thousands of years" in the form of a qquestion, it is quite clear that you have no knowledghe what so ever of what evolution actually is. You are basign you decision on faulty infomration, which is the purpose of this forum.

We have provided the information to you. Will you actually examine it, or will you dismiss it out of hand because of your fear that it will change your views?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

But you have faith that your assumption will be correct. You cannot see your breaks in operation when you press the brake pedal, but you assume, by faith and experience, that the brakes will work. I have faith in God because I have experienced His work in my life and others.

No, I can tell you why my brakes work, you cannot tell me why your god works, that is the basic difference between what man can know, and what you pretend to know.

 

[DamonWV]

Damon, please just stop using AIG as the basis for all your claims. Their "science" is just wrong. Trust me from someone who used to be more of a YEC advocate than you are.

I use more than AIG , i have done lots of reading by Phillip johnson tornado in a junkyard , other books , case for a creator, refuting Evolution.
Getting ready to watch Icons of Evolution, The privaledged planet, and unlocking the mysterious of life. Most of these I got from Christian Research institute.

WHy should I stop using AIG, you are just like evolutionists that demand that christians give up their bible as their foundation before starting a debate.
I wont do it, I believe EVERYTHING in the bible to be 100 % accurate. WHy because god said so,and that is what I start my thinking with.
Im sorry alot of you people think your all so bright and intellegent from your studies and have some world view of how things came into being. More power to you, I havent asked you to take any of your foundation and presumptioms away. SO dont go off saying for me to leave mine out. AIG , CRI , or any other christiam ministries i listen to VIA web, or radio , like Rc sproul , Bible answer man .. ect ect are people I believe in what they are talking about.

Another reason I would refute millions of years is because our genelogy of ancestory goes back what about 5000 years or so ? Starting with adam ? If there was animals and life before adam, if their were things that died before the fall of man, then that is making a claim death before sin , which is totally against what the fall of man is all about.
You wont change my point of view, I have studied , and read enough articles and find every thing I read to fit perfectly into a young earth model.
If you state im brainwashed , then i Just point my finger back and call you a bigot because you woudl be guilty of the same thing I am. Believing in what you believe and nothing else. Thats what both sides of the spectrum we got here.
As i stated before and ill say it again, we make our decisions form personal bias and presumptions form what our foundations of beliefs are. Facts are neutral, and its how we each interpret them that make us so different.
Like i said, if you think you are neutral, then you truly are lying to yourself.