Noah's Ark Replica Opens in the Netherlands

[Paulos23]

Yes --- and believe me --- Noah had the most advanced Navigation on earth.

Far, far more advanced than any GPS system we'll ever use.

And how did he propel the ark? There was no mention of motors, sails, or oars.

 

[DrkSdBls]

My signature says it all.

Congradulations. You've master the Art of Saying Everything by saying Nothing.

Of course, you still failed to explain anything so enjoy your hollow Victory.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Genesis 6.14 "Make thee an ark of gopherwood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt cover it within and without with pitch."

Pitch is not Plastic, even in the broadest terms. It's Tar and Resin. It's also used only on Small Boats. Any larger and there becomes even more complications.

Not to mention the Amount of Pitch that would be required to cover both the Inside and Outside of a Vessel the Size of the Ark.

 

[nvxplorer]

Interestingly enough neither verse mentions noah.

But one verse uses the word "captain," and the other, "anchor." That surely means that God controls all sailing vessels.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how did he propel the ark? There was no mention of motors, sails, or oars.

Indeed --- the Ark just floated --- biding its time.

 

[Paulos23]

Indeed --- the Ark just floated --- biding its time.

Then why did he need to navigate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Pitch is not Plastic, even in the broadest terms. It's Tar and Resin. It's also used only on Small Boats. Any larger and there becomes even more complications.

Not to mention the Amount of Pitch that would be required to cover both the Inside and Outside of a Vessel the Size of the Ark.

Are we still on 'plastic'?

Let me change it then, just for something refreshing.

The Ark could have been made out of balsa wood if God so decreed, and it still would have accomplished its purpose.

 

[Phred]

Are we still on 'plastic'?

Let me change it then, just for something refreshing.

The Ark could have been made out of balsa wood if God so decreed, and it still would have accomplished its purpose.

You sure? Hooves would have penetrated balsa wood.

 

[AV1611VET]

But one verse uses the word "captain," and the other, "anchor." That surely means that God controls all sailing vessels.

Atheistic logic at its best --- did He control the Edmund Fitzgerald?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why did he need to navigate?

He didn't --- and couldn't even if he had wanted to.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sure? Hooves would have penetrated balsa wood.

Well they would have scratched the plastic --- then Mrs Noah would have been upset.

 

[Phred]

Atheistic logic at its best --- did He control the Edmund Fitzgerald?

So speaks the man who insists that his book is literally true in every regard and then disregards it whenever he feels like. Wood, plastic, whatever... Here's the thing... the vessel was made of wood according to the book. It was larger than any wooden floating vessel ever made. We know that such large vessels cannot maintain their integrity for very long... hours, days... not months or a year. But you're convinced that the ark was encapsulated in a magic bubble created by God for just the purpose of making it seaworthy. Yet, God had Noah coat the ark with pitch both inside and out... if there was no reason to do so, why make him do it?

Magic animals, magic vessels, magic people who later evolved into all of us. It's all magic and it all left no trace. So either it all happened exactly as the Bible says it did, and it was all magic... so magical in fact that several civilizations lived right through it without even noticing it happened or all this magic upon magic upon magic never happened at all. Which do you think makes the most sense?

 

[AV1611VET]

...if there was no reason to do so, why make him do it?

Is this what this all boils down to, Phred?

You don't know why He did it, so He didn't do it?

FYI, the Scofield Reference Bible has an excellent footnote on why God had His people do seemingly foolish things like pitch the Ark, march around Jericho, wash in the Jordan seven times, send 90% of their army back home, etc.

I suggest you at least try to make an effort to understand, rather than come on here and tell us it couldn't have happened.

Do you really think that just telling us it didn't happen is fazing us?

The more evidence you have that it couldn't have happened, the more you make it look like a miracle, and the more we believe it.

I personally don't like to hear, "I suppose it could have happened, but..."

I wanna hear stuff like, "It couldn't have happened. No way, no how, no thanks. It flies in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, it would be the epitome of nonsense to believe it."

[bible]1 Corinthians 1:27[/bible]

 

[Loudmouth]

The more evidence you have that it couldn't have happened, the more you make it look like a miracle, and the more we believe it.

That's a keeper.

Hey AV, I have this story about a fat guy in a red suit. Listen closely now . . .

 

[Phred]

Is this what this all boils down to, Phred?

You don't know why He did it, so He didn't do it?

FYI, the Scofield Reference Bible has an excellent footnote on why God had His people do seemingly foolish things like pitch the Ark, march around Jericho, wash in the Jordan seven times, send 90% of your army back home, etc.

I suggest you at least try to make an effort to understand, rather than come on here and tell us it couldn't have happened.

Do you really think that just telling us it didn't happen is fazing us?

The more evidence you have that it couldn't have happened, the more you make it look like a miracle, and the more we believe it.

I personally don't like to hear, "I suppose it could have happened, but..."

I wanna hear stuff like, "It couldn't have happened. No way, no how, no thanks. It flies in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, it would be the epitome of nonsense to believe it."

[bible]1 Corinthians 1:27[/bible]

Wow... somewhere in there reading comprehension got lost on you. Let's try one more time.

You say the Bible is literal, to be read and taken for exactly what it says. It says that God told Noah to build an Ark exactly as if he was building a boat that had to be seaworthy, out of wood and covered with pitch both inside and out. So I take it literally. When I do, and I ask you why, if Noah was building a vessel that had to be seaworthy by God's command you tell me it didn't have to be. Who's the one with the problem here? Me for taking the Bible literally or you for disputing it? Was the ark built to be seaworthy or not? If so, then why did God have to protect it magically? If not, then why doesn't the Bible simply say that the ark was only a box to hold the animals in while God protected them magically?

You see, you ADD to the Bible everytime I turn around in order to maintain the fallacy of your literal interpretation. And that's what we find when it's all said and done... the only thing wrong with all of this is your interpretation.

 

[Beastt]

Is this what this all boils down to, Phred?

You don't know why He did it, so He didn't do it?

FYI, the Scofield Reference Bible has an excellent footnote on why God had His people do seemingly foolish things like pitch the Ark, march around Jericho, wash in the Jordan seven times, send 90% of their army back home, etc.

I suggest you at least try to make an effort to understand, rather than come on here and tell us it couldn't have happened.

Do you really think that just telling us it didn't happen is fazing us?

The more evidence you have that it couldn't have happened, the more you make it look like a miracle, and the more we believe it.

I personally don't like to hear, "I suppose it could have happened, but..."

I wanna hear stuff like, "It couldn't have happened. No way, no how, no thanks. It flies in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, it would be the epitome of nonsense to believe it."

[bible]1 Corinthians 1:27[/bible]

I would hope that you understand that using arguments like that you've been presenting here, one could take absolutely any child's fairytale and make the same assertion that it is all completely true. And that's the problem.

The Bible goes out of its way to attempt to provide validity to the story by describing the size of the ark, the material from which it was made, the basics of it's internal structure, the pitch covering both inside and out, the number of animals... these are all attempts by the author to lend validity to the idea that the flood could have happened via naturalistic means. The problem is that the author didn't know what we know today and we now know enough to recognize that his attempts at credibility are a major part of what lends the story a complete lack of credibility.

Had it all been done my miracles, there would be no need for the size of the ark, God could simply have "poofed" the animals into miniatures which could have fit on a row boat. God could have placed them in suspended animation to overcome the need for food. He could have stored the fish and marine mammals in a bubble of water above the atmosphere. There would have been no need to suggest the pitch to make the craft water-tight because God was going to assure that it stayed afloat anyway. There would be no need to talk about the door on the ark because he could have just "poofed" the animals into the ark before the flood and out of the ark when it was over. The author was clearly attempting to make the story seem credible via naturalistic means; and in so doing, exposed the fictional nature of his account. But until you are willing to recognize that truth owes nothing to your desire, truth will remain beyond your grasp. If you're hanging from a cliff and praying for a ladder, you'll ignore the cabled harness hanging right beside you because it's not the solution you're looking for. And that's exactly what you appear to be doing here.

There are dozens of insurmountable problems with the global flood story but there is a very logical, completely reasonable and well-evidenced solution which explains every last detail. But it's not the solution you want, so you deny it and turn to the tactic of heaping the unevidenced and unclaimed atop the impossible and implausible.

Your explanations are as contrary to what the Bible states as the problems others are pointing out to you. The Bible clearly attempts to suggest that the Ark would have floated because it was constructed as were floating vessels of the day. It attempts to suggest that the water came from natural systems known to bring water -- rain and geysers. Everything about the story is an attempt to show credibility based on the purely naturalistic, but the event itself is said to have been orchestrated by God. He planned a flood but wanted to salvage some life -- enough to repopulate the Earth. But he knew a global flood would destroy all life so he didn't miracle some life into surviving the flood, he found a man of extreme faith and had him build what men of the day would have recognized as the only possible way to survive such a flood. God didn't miracle the water away in an instant, the Bible clearly attempts to suggest that the flood waters receded and dried just as waters are known to do in local floods.

When you go stacking miracles atop magic in order to try to make the Bible's naturalistic explanations work, you don't demonstrate credibility to the story. You instead demonstrate your desperation to believe the biblical account even if it means dismissing reality. Do you understand why that might be frustrating to others? It's like trying to explain to your child that Santa doesn't exist and having the child insist that Santa does exist and that all of the proposed problems can be refuted via magic.

Hang with us. Try not to let that frustration chase you away. I think you add something to the threads which we wouldn't have without you. But I also find the frustration I see in others when you practically have to re-write the Bible in order to assert that its account of a global flood is other than fiction.

I find this to be a bit like the person who is told by their doctor that they are dying and have no hope of survival but are so traumatized, that they simply can't accept it. So they start telling others that the doctor is a quack and they refuse to see him again. When they begin feeling symptoms, they convince themselves that it's something else -- indigestion, a headache, gas.. whatever works for them. The problem with this is that truth is held to no standard of meeting anyone's desire. It remains truth even where the entire population of the planet would prefer it be untrue. There is accepting truth for what it is and there is denial. But no amount of denial will change the truth. Truth is only available to those who are willing to accept it, even if it violates their desire. I think the question you need to begin to ask yourself is; are you willing to accept truth even if it turns out to be contrary to your desire? If not, then your search for truth will be completely futile. You simply can't find truth if you're not willing to accept what you find.

 

[Ryal Kane]

The other interesting thing about using pitch is tha most creationist assert that petrochemicals were created DURING the flood, so Noah couldn't have used it.

 

[Pesto]

The other interesting thing about using pitch is tha most creationist assert that petrochemicals were created DURING the flood, so Noah couldn't have used it.

Or...

 

[Paulos23]

Or...

Neat, but the wrong Continent.

 

[Pesto]

Neat, but the wrong Continent.

I was just saying that "pitch" isn't necessarily a petroleum product. Other trees produce sap, as well.