How can you say you believe in god?

[laconicstudent]

We had better not be moving towards the "Carnivores were obviously herbivores before the Fall" argument. That one is always really painful

 

[shernren]

Well obviously back in those days, sharks and bears and other beasts meant no harm to humans. Since sin did not exist in the world at that time, it would be the same as how it will be in the endtimes:

You mean like this?

Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.

I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.
Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. ...

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD.

[Isa 65:17-20, 25 NIV]

So animals won't die, but people will? And here I thought humans were the pinnacle of creation.

 

[lucaspa]

It stands to reason that if one book of the bible is wrong then every subsequent book that makes reference to it within the bible is wrong.. if thats the case wouldn't that unsubstantient the entirety of the works?

We take claims one at a time. So your premise is in error: that all the Bible must be true in order for any of it to be true. What's more, there are different types of trut. You apparently are reading the Bible literally instead of how it is supposed to be read: as a theological document. Genesis 1 was not meant to be history; it was meant to be a theological refutation of the Babylonian religion. It does that very well. Genesis 1 tells a theological truth, not a literal truth of history.

Let's take this out of the Bible for a bit so you can see that we do not apply the criteria you are using.

First, let's look at Shakespeare's Macbeth. It is set in a fictional history of Scotland. None of the events depicted actually happened in history. Yet the play remains popular because it tells truths about human nature: lust for power, corruption by power, guilt, justice, etc. Those are truths even when set in a not-true history. Just as Macbeth can tell human truths in a fictional history, so can the Bible tell theological truths even tho some of its history is wrong.

Second, let's look at Origin of Species. Darwin got some things wrong in that book. For instance, he ascribes the loss of wings of a species of beetles on some islands to use/disuse. Does that make evolution wrong? Of course not. That is one claim. It being wrong does not negate the accurate claims in the book.

So assuming this to be the case, we would have to state that since Yaweh either didn't write the bible or he was mistake in what he himself said he did or claimed to be true, that he was not elohim meaning Jesus (who is reffered to in the bible as the son of adam) who shared the exact same understanding of the creation of the world that his father did was in fact incorrect as well..

There are a few logical problems here.

First is the premise "Yahweh wrote the bible". Jesus tells us in Mark 10 and Matthew 14 that Yahweh did not write the Bible. Jesus says Moses did. And Jesus is referring to the only "bible" in his day -- the Pentateuch. Also, Jesus says the bible contains mistakes. Jesus says this in the same chapters. He is referring to Deut 24:1 and says it is a mistake.

Second, Jesus did have a correct understanding of creation. Whenever Jesus refers to any of the Genesis stories, he refers to them correctly: as theological truths. In Mark 10 and Matthew 14 he uses creation of men and women in Genesis 1 as a basis to say that divorce is wrong. It doesn't matter that God created humans male and female by evolution; He still created them male and female. That is what is important. When Jesus refers to the Flood, he does so as a metaphor for not being prepared, not as history.

You cannot say the bible cannot be taken literally and say you believe in Jesus because Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

The foundational creeds of Christianity are the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. They state what it is necessary to believe in order to be a Christian. Neither of them state a literal Bible is necessary to be a Christian. So it is very possible to be a Christian and say not all the Bible is to be taken literally. Some parts of the Bible do need, of course, to be read literally. It was not a figurative Resurrection, for instance. We believe Jesus did literally resurrect. Nor was it a figurative creation. God did create. But we do not have to believe a literal reading of the Bible on how God created. The different stories of creation (and yes, there are more than one story of creation in Genesis and they contradict) are not literal history.

I would also have you look in Acts to the story of Paul and the jailor. What did Paul say was necessary to believe? Did he mention anything about a literal bible?

What you are doing here is trying to add something as necessary to Christianity that is not necessary: a literal bible. Instead of focussing on God and Jesus (and in particular your personal relationship with God), you are focussing on the bible. If you have a personal relationship with God (Jesus), you don't need the bible at all. The bible, in fact, is only a tool to help you find that personal relationship. The bible is not an end in itself.

 

[AForestOfStars]

I do believe the Bible is from God, just that it's possible that the days in Genesis were not meant to be taken as literal days. I don't dismiss those passages as being wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

I do believe the Bible is from God, just that it's possible that the days in Genesis were not meant to be taken as literal days. I don't dismiss those passages as being wrong.

The authors intended the "days" to be literal days. They did this because they were deliberately constructing creation to give an (unneccessary) justification for the command about the sabbath.

Notice that for days 1-3 the authors say "evening and morning" even tho there is no sun to give those. Why did they do that? So that the day would conform to the Hebrew idea of 24 hours. Days 5-6 don't have that phrase.

Genesis 1 was written toward the end or just after the Babylonian Captivity. The Israelites were under tremendous pressure to abandon their religion and convert to the Babylonian religion. One of the peculiarities of Judaism was keeping the Sabbath. This is commanded in Exodus 20:10 and should be kept because God commands it. No other reason needed. But the Israelites felt an all-too-human need for some other justification, and Genesis 1 provides it. The redactor who put the Pentateuch together then closes the circuit by inserting Exodus 20:11.

Genesis 1 was never meant to give a timing or order for Creation. It was meant to preserve Judaism by destroying the Babylonian gods. Since you believe the Babylonian gods are false, you indeed "don't dismiss those passages as being wrong". You believe they are correct in what they set out to do.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have a question I need to better understand the answer from. The only people who can help me to answer it are those who are "christians" as well as "evolutionists."

It depends on how you define evolution and certainly, what makes one think they are a Christian.

Here's my question if you believe that elohim exists and that everything he said happened in the bible subsequently happened up to and including the birth of Yehoshua through imaculate conception via Mary then how can you rule out another thing he implicetely states without throwing out your entire belief system.

You just took a giant leap through redemptive history there, all the way from creation to the coming of the Savior. I think I know what your getting at but for one thing, certain OT passages are written in such a way that a literal interprutation isn't really nessacary. Due to the historical nature of the narratives I favor a literal interprutation but if I choose otherwise there are sound exegetical ways of negotiating that.

It stands to reason that if one book of the bible is wrong then every subsequent book that makes reference to it within the bible is wrong.. if thats the case wouldn't that unsubstantient the entirety of the works?

It probably does in the minds of some but taking something figuratively is not the same thing as rejecting it as untrue. My favorite example is Song of Songs, I will have you know that I take this song as a literal narrative. Now that is not to say that I do not see the metaphors indicating Jehovah/Israel or Christ/Church applications. I'm just saying the the literal and figurative need not be mutually exclusive.

So assuming this to be the case, we would have to state that since Yaweh either didn't write the bible or he was mistake in what he himself said he did or claimed to be true, that he was not elohim meaning Jesus (who is reffered to in the bible as the son of adam) who shared the exact same understanding of the creation of the world that his father did was in fact incorrect as well.. so therefore he wasn't really "Christ" so your not really Christians since the term Christian isn't complete without Christ. You cannot say the bible cannot be taken literally and say you believe in Jesus because Jesus said "A man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God" and since the bible is the word of god you by not living by it are directly contradicting the Person you are basing your belief system on.

Ok, you have a lot going on in the part of the post. First of all Elohim is the Hebrew word for 'God Almighty'. This is directly tied to God as Creator and Jesus as the incarnate Word is Elohim manifest in the flesh. Now getting to your point, Jesus is either God in human flesh or the New Testament is mythology and I could care less about the Old Testament. This point of doctrine is non-negotiable and every Christian doctrine that deviates from this is rightfully condemned as heretical.

Now on the other hand if you take Genesis as poetic prose and choose to take it figuratively you are not really ripping anything vital out by the roots. It really comes down to your motives. If you are fully convinced of evolution as natural history and the Bible as redemptive history I say, go in peace I have no problem with you. If on the other hand bashing creationism is just a pretense for rejecting the miracles and wonder working power of God wittnessed to in the Scriptures you are worse then an unbeliever.

It just all depends, I'm a young earth creationist. Given the short amount of time an Ark full of animals had to spread across the face of the earth becoming the millions of species in all their vast array, I'd say I'm the most radical evolutionist on the boards.

The difference between me and most creationists is that I realize it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

My favorite example is Song of Songs, I will have you know that I take this song as a literal narrative.

By that I think you mean you see it as a real love song between two real humans. I agree. I can’t help but take your quote the wrong way though, just for fun:

Surely you don’t mean every part is literal. For example:

SoS 4:2-5

Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
descending from Mount Gilead.
Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
coming up from the washing.
Each has its twin;
not one of them is alone.
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
your mouth is lovely.
Your temples behind your veil
are like the halves of a pomegranate.
Your neck is like the tower of David,
built with elegance;
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.

I think this only makes your point here stronger:

taking something figuratively is not the same thing as rejecting it as untrue. ……….I'm just saying the the literal and figurative need not be mutually exclusive.

Another point:

I'm a young earth creationist. Given the short amount of time an Ark full of animals had to spread across the face of the earth becoming the millions of species in all their vast array, I'd say I'm the most radical evolutionist on the boards.

That’s an important, and widely unknown point. Many lay creationists appear to think that Noah took species on the ark (species = kind), but it would be hard to realistically take more than a few hundred species (think of 2 to 7 of each, and their feeding, exercising, cleaning, watering, temperature, etc, for whole year, with a staff of 7 people) on the ark.

We have around 5 million species on Earth now. Because fitting millions of species (times 2 to 7) on the ark is obviously not reasonable, most creationist organizations now favor hyperevolution, (kind = genus or something) as Mark pointed out.

So that means that if any ark existed, we’d need each ark species, on average, to make (~5,000,000/~250) = 20,000 species evolved, on average, from each and every species on the ark within 4,500 years. That’s an average of over 4 new species every year, much faster than rate modern biologists propose for the rate of evolution over our 4,600,000,000 year history of the Earth. These numbers show why Mark is probably right that he’s “the most radical evolutionist” on this board.

The difference between me and most creationists is that I realize it.

And though Mark and I may differ on many points, that difference is why I respect his views more than I respect the views many other creationists.

Papias

 

[Jnwaco]

Know the genre of a book.
Know the writing form and style of ancient Hebrews.
Understand the purpose of that book in the Bible.
Know when the genre might be changing within a book.
Know it's context.
Understand that ancient Hebrew authors weren't always concerned with chronological order.
Don't apply one way of reading one book to the entire Bible.
All of these are clues as to how we're to take the Bible. And it's not a task that one can do by simply reading the Bible once and then making a claim. It's a lifetime learning process, even for seminary graduates.

The structure of Genesis 1 suggests that it's parallel prose, common to ancient Hebrew writings, and which is very different than the way we write today. It was concerned with ease of memorization, which stemmed from it's oral tradition, and wasn't entirely concerned with chronology.

It's sad that the evolution/creation is such a huge debate. It's unecessary. I'm sure the media loves it, since stories and books challenging God tend to sell well in America. It's also sad that people think that if Genesis 1 isn't literal, it somehow means that Jesus didn't exist or that his story is a big metaphor. Nothing could be more naive. When Luke says he's trying to write down an accurate history, that's what he's doing.

Reading Genesis 1 literally or as ancient prose makes no difference to salvation. It might make a difference in how we look to others, though. Whether God created the earth in 7 days or 20 billion years, Christ did die on the cross and he did rise again, and that is literal fact, because the authors tell us so explicitly.

Anyways, my two cents.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark wrote:



By that I think you mean you see it as a real love song between two real humans. I agree. I can’t help but take your quote the wrong way though, just for fun:

Surely you don’t mean every part is literal. For example:

SoS 4:2-5

Your eyes behind your veil are doves.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
descending from Mount Gilead.
Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn,
coming up from the washing.
Each has its twin;
not one of them is alone.
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon;
your mouth is lovely.
Your temples behind your veil
are like the halves of a pomegranate.
Your neck is like the tower of David,
built with elegance;
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.

I think this only makes your point here stronger:



Another point:

He makes speaches like that throughout the book. Basically it's a narrative about two young people who are betrothed (married in a sense) but couldn't take the final vows until everything was ready. Never found a line of interprutation that followed the same lines as my own but I'm still looking.

That’s an important, and widely unknown point. Many lay creationists appear to think that Noah took species on the ark (species = kind), but it would be hard to realistically take more than a few hundred species (think of 2 to 7 of each, and their feeding, exercising, cleaning, watering, temperature, etc, for whole year, with a staff of 7 people) on the ark.

We have around 5 million species on Earth now. Because fitting millions of species (times 2 to 7) on the ark is obviously not reasonable, most creationist organizations now favor hyperevolution, (kind = genus or something) as Mark pointed out.

So that means that if any ark existed, we’d need each ark species, on average, to make (~5,000,000/~250) = 20,000 species evolved, on average, from each and every species on the ark within 4,500 years. That’s an average of over 4 new species every year, much faster than rate modern biologists propose for the rate of evolution over our 4,600,000,000 year history of the Earth. These numbers show why Mark is probably right that he’s “the most radical evolutionist” on this board.[/FONT
]

Yea and that doesn't even take into account the logistics of speading across the face of the earth some 10,000 miles in circumferance. A local flood is the explanation of many but I'm more in favor of the animals from the Ark having nearly pristine genomes.

My reason for being a creationist has little to do with that and even less to do with the time frame. I'm a Young Earth Creationist by default and deeply suspicious of the ulterior motives of secular clerics. My primary focus was human evolution from that of apes, very little else interested me. I'm also interested in the philosophy of Darwinism and it's sweeping assumptions but even that held very little charm since evolutionists are not even dimly aware of it.

The last couple of years my real interest has been evolutionists. I've learned about all I need to about the substantive issues and primary lines of evidence. Now I'm just curious what makes evolutionists tick.

And though Mark and I may differ on many points, that difference is why I respect his views more than I respect the views many other creationists.

Papias

Well if respect is graded on a curve I suppose I should be flattered. I respect anyone willing to plumb the depths to learn the complexities of the science and Scriptural issues. Such people are uncommon in the former and nearly non-existant in the latter catagories. With Creationism being a majority view amoung Christians in the US and, dovetailing nicely with Christian theism, it's no wonder Creationists generally shun these debates.

It's a shame though, creationists arguing against evolution given the timeframe set out in Genesis. Now that could turn into one radical ideal if Creationists only knew.

Shhhhh....Don't tell them, they think they are opposed to evolution.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Know the genre of a book.
Know the writing form and style of ancient Hebrews.
Understand the purpose of that book in the Bible.
Know when the genre might be changing within a book.
Know it's context.
Understand that ancient Hebrew authors weren't always concerned with chronological order.
Don't apply one way of reading one book to the entire Bible.
All of these are clues as to how we're to take the Bible. And it's not a task that one can do by simply reading the Bible once and then making a claim. It's a lifetime learning process, even for seminary graduates.

Indeed, and no small task for the new Christian just trying to learn a few things about prayer. Kind of hard for them to digest so much analytical thought when the Bible hasn't been taught comprehensively in seminaries for years.

The structure of Genesis 1 suggests that it's parallel prose, common to ancient Hebrew writings, and which is very different than the way we write today. It was concerned with ease of memorization, which stemmed from it's oral tradition, and wasn't entirely concerned with chronology.

I'll agree that it's poetic prose but that's about it.

It's sad that the evolution/creation is such a huge debate. It's unecessary. I'm sure the media loves it, since stories and books challenging God tend to sell well in America. It's also sad that people think that if Genesis 1 isn't literal, it somehow means that Jesus didn't exist or that his story is a big metaphor. Nothing could be more naive. When Luke says he's trying to write down an accurate history, that's what he's doing.

The truely sad part of it is that Creationists are not the ones fanning the flames of controversy. This is all coming from the ivory towers of academia. Luke does write an accurate history and oh by the way, he refers to Adam as the son of God. Ever wonder what he meant by that?

Reading Genesis 1 literally or as ancient prose makes no difference to salvation. It might make a difference in how we look to others, though. Whether God created the earth in 7 days or 20 billion years, Christ did die on the cross and he did rise again, and that is literal fact, because the authors tell us so explicitly.

Anyways, my two cents.

Genesis is a book of geneologies, there are ten of them within the historical narrative known collectively as Genesis. It was written as history and there is really nothing indicating that the literary style is inherantly figurative, quite the contrary.

I do agree that that emphasis should always be on the Gospel but strangely, never is on this board. Could be that that's the whole stradegy.

At any rate, an interesting post

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Dionysiou]

If you had a relationship with God you would not ask such questions

If you had been in the presence of Jesus you would not ask such questions

If you had been caught up in visions you would not ask such questions

If you had experienced the Holy Spirits power you would not ask such questions

If you had earnestly seeked God before you posted this thread, you would not ask such questions!

Brother, seek first and then ask questions.

 

[lucaspa]

It depends on how you define evolution and certainly, what makes one think they are a Christian.

The defining creeds of Christianity are the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. If you agree with the statements of faith in those creeds, you are a Christian.

Ok, you have a lot going on in the part of the post. First of all Elohim is the Hebrew word for 'God Almighty'.

Actually, "elohim" is Hebrew for "gods". Plural of "god". The Hebrews used it to refer to a singular deity as a way to avoid "naming" God.

This is directly tied to God as Creator and Jesus as the incarnate Word is Elohim manifest in the flesh.

There really isn't a direct tie like you are using it. Genesis 1 (the P account) uses "elohim" in that creation story. The J account uses "yhwh" in that creation account. John 1 -- where Logos (Word) is used does not refer to either elohim or yhwh.

Now getting to your point, Jesus is either God in human flesh or the New Testament is mythology and I could care less about the Old Testament. This point of doctrine is non-negotiable and every Christian doctrine that deviates from this is rightfully condemned as heretical.

There are other choices without the gospels being mythology. As you noted, those choices have been declared heretical, but if true, they would still not make the gospels mythology. In the early Church there was a large dispute between this viewpoint and Adoptionism. In Adoptionism, Jesus is the adopted son of God. Salvation works under Adoptionism, also.

Christianity eventually went to Trinity, but IMO it would have been fine if Adoptionism had won.

If you are fully convinced of evolution as natural history and the Bible as redemptive history I say, go in peace I have no problem with you.

Hmmm. You haven't been nearly so peaceful with me, and I fit your criteria.

If on the other hand bashing creationism is just a pretense for rejecting the miracles and wonder working power of God wittnessed to in the Scriptures you are worse then an unbeliever.

The problem here is that creationism makes it so much easier for the atheist. If, as creationism does, you tie the existence of God and the validity of all the scripture to creationism, then you make it very easy for someone to extend rejection of creationism to everything else.

It just all depends, I'm a young earth creationist. Given the short amount of time an Ark full of animals had to spread across the face of the earth becoming the millions of species in all their vast array, I'd say I'm the most radical evolutionist on the boards.

LOL! Yes, that would make you an evolutionist. Which makes me wonder why you would continue to reject what God tells us in His Creation and insist on a young earth, a global flood, and the Ark. You obviously don't have any theological problem with evolution, so why stick with something God has so clearly told you is wrong?

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Darwin attributed evolution to God. I don't know how you can say that the "point" of evolution is to deny Him. God, of course, is perfectly capable of acting via natural -- even seemingly random -- processes, including evolution.

I thought Darwin rejected the notion of God? Atleast that is what we are led to believe...

 

[Mallon]

I thought Darwin rejected the notion of God? Atleast that is what we are led to believe...

That's what most YECs want you to believe, but the fact is that Darwin was no atheist. He was born and raised a Christian, and later became agnostic after the death of his daughter.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

That's what most YECs want you to believe, but the fact is that Darwin was no atheist. He was born and raised a Christian, and later became agnostic after the death of his daughter.

So he rejected Christ?

I spoke to my priest the other day (Assyrian Church of the East) he believes in long ages and it shocked me when he said that Genesis is poetic and we should not understand it as 6 literal days. (Didn't see it coming)

Although I believe that God created the world and everything in it in 6 days (yum), I do not think the length of those days should be taken as 24 hour periods and infact I believe that both scientists and creationists cannot know the exact timing of God's work.

I believe there will be many surprises if and when we see the Lord, I think many of the things we believe to be factual will be turned on their heads!

We also should not be arguing about things that are "not profitable" to the soul as Paul mentioned. I am assuming that most of you guys have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your saviour and we should be glorifying him instead of bickering about our origins.

God bless you guys!

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

That's what most YECs want you to believe, but the fact is that Darwin was no atheist. He was born and raised a Christian, and later became agnostic after the death of his daughter.

Hey Sorry Mallon,

How do we fit the story of the ark in regards to evolution and so on?

What I am trying to say is that were all the animals put on the ark or only a few? Or only kinds?

Thanks Mate!

 

[gluadys]

That's what most YECs want you to believe, but the fact is that Darwin was no atheist. He was born and raised a Christian, and later became agnostic after the death of his daughter.

Even more to the point, although Darwin became agnostic for personal reasons, he never wrote rejection of God into his scientific theory and was appreciative of Christians who voiced support for it.

 

[gluadys]

Hey Sorry Mallon,

How do we fit the story of the ark in regards to evolution and so on?

What I am trying to say is that were all the animals put on the ark or only a few? Or only kinds?

Thanks Mate!

Probably the same way the Rev. Adam Sedgwick did back in 1835 (which, you will note was long before Darwin published his theory). Although for some time he had supported the belief that there had been a global flood in Noah's day, when the geological evidence failed to support that conclusion he reversed his position and opted for the interpretation that it had been a relatively local flood.

It is geology not evolution, which rules out a global flood and did so before there was much scientific support for evolution. You might be interested in this historical review of Christian positions on the flood in the 18th-19th centuries.


History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Probably the same way the Rev. Adam Sedgwick did back in 1835 (which, you will note was long before Darwin published his theory). Although for some time he had supported the belief that there had been a global flood in Noah's day, when the geological evidence failed to support that conclusion he reversed his position and opted for the interpretation that it had been a relatively local flood.

It is geology not evolution, which rules out a global flood and did so before there was much scientific support for evolution. You might be interested in this historical review of Christian positions on the flood in the 18th-19th centuries.


History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

We cannot say that there is no evidence of a global flood, I can google evidence for a global flood and many articles written by scientists provide evidence for the global flood.

What I will agree on is that scientists on both sides of the equation have certain biases and presuppositions that they may apply to the same thing and two different results are produced based on this.

For e.g. The Grand Canyon took millions of years to form or the Grand Canyon was formed during a global flood in a short period of time. How do we conclusively prove either? Is it not ultimately based on the persons interpretation of the available data?

On another note, where do we draw the line with scientific research on our origins. Secular scientists are trying hard to work out how we got here and they don't take kindly to God being the answer. Evolution is one of the mechanisms that is used to explain the diversity of species (even though many of you are theistic evolutionists, this does not sit well with main stream scientists).

Scientists are adamant that life somehow came into existance through non life and that non life came from a "God" partical via a cosmic explosion. So what do we do when we are told that their is evidence for all of this? Do we abandon God because the interpretation of evidence tells us that God is not needed in the existance of the universe?

I am not having a go at anyone, I am not a scientist but a lowly Business Analyst and my job is to probe and ask questions.

 

[Mallon]

How do we fit the story of the ark in regards to evolution and so on?

I would argue, as Christians have for a long time, that the story of Noah's ark isn't a historical event as told (although it may be based on a real story).
Read this paper and let me know what you think, CW:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/evolutionary_creation.pdf