That Boat Don't Float!!

[Catherineanne]

"Extrapolating from any bit of Scripture" is often part of a process known as "Bible Study". Part of those that I've attended anyway.

I am sorry to hear that.

 

[Freodin]

As the Ark Story clearly states:
The Ark had no propulsion and was a rectangle box with no keel mentioned.
Kinds, not species...correct.
Hibernation is not mentioned, yet the conditions leave little other choice. It's dark, there's not a lot of room, and the Ark had no deck.
Often people in the Bible lived longer than modern people.

So the Ark had no keel, because there is no keel mentioned.

But the animals hibernated, even if hibernation is not mentioned.


Some people might call that "making up stuff".

 

[Catherineanne]

As the Ark Story clearly states:
The Ark had no propulsion and was a rectangle box with no keel mentioned.
Kinds, not species...correct.
Hibernation is not mentioned, yet the conditions leave little other choice. It's dark, there's not a lot of room, and the Ark had no deck.
Often people in the Bible lived longer than modern people.

This is not Bible study, this is adding to the gospel that we were given, to create a modern, man made gospel.

You simply cannot take what is written and then make assumptions about what is NOT written. You cannot conclude that the Ark had no propulsion, because none is mentioned. All that you can safely conclude is that it may have had, or it may not have had, but that we are not told.

Similarly, you cannot conclude that 'kinds' is a word which stands in contradistinction to 'species'. There is no evidence whatsoever that such a semantic distinction would have existed when the story of Noah was written. The safest conclusion is to accept that, actually, in this context, 'kinds' is synonymous with 'species'. This is not Darwin writing, but Moses. (Or not. )

You cannot conclude there was no deck on the Ark, just because the Bible does not say whether there was or not. All that you can safely conclude is that it may have had, or it may not have had, but that we are not told.

You cannot conclude that the animals in the ark would have hibernated, because it was dark. You can't even conclude that it was dark; it may have been, or it may not have been; we are not told. In addition, some animals hibernate, at an appropriate time of year, some do not. Those in the Middle East do not.

It is nonsense to interpret the story in this way, to attempt to rationalise what you clearly find difficult to accept as it stands. It is as nonsensical as trying to argue what kind of wood the Greeks used to construct their horse, whether they used screws, nails or wood glue, and whether they varnished it when they had finished. None of that matters.

From the 39 articles:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

QED

 

[Catherineanne]

So the Ark had no keel, because there is no keel mentioned.

But the animals hibernated, even if hibernation is not mentioned.


Some people might call that "making up stuff".

Indeed so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some people might call that "making up stuff".

You mean like filling in missing links?

 

[Catherineanne]

Even if he is making stuff up perhaps that's what he requires to keep himself believing plus it's all made up anyway just not by him, everyone uses whatever they need from religions anyway so it shouldn't matter to anyone else?
let them believe as they want to believe and he can do the same, it's all a load of fudge anyway so what's the problem? live and let live.

How can I do otherwise than let others believe as they want to?

As far as I am aware there is no process known to man to force anyone to believe anything against his will. Behaviour can be compelled, but belief cannot. We have to choose to change our minds.

Therefore, you may safely conclude that I am only expressing my own point of view, and not attempting to force anything on anyone.

 

[Freodin]

You mean like filling in missing links?

No. Similar method, but different result.

 

[Hespera]

You're correct. My usage is wrong.

Just trying to find out what you meant! What did you mean?

 

[Catherineanne]

Do you think dad or AV1611VET chose to be what they are? and do you honestly think they could change now even if they wanted too?

I don't think anything about them, to be honest. They are not my concern.

I never for one moment thought you were attempting to force anyone to do anything, all I was saying was, people use religion for their own ends which could be for all kinds of reasons.

This is true of every belief, not just religious ones. People are human; sometimes good, sometimes bad. However, the burden of morality is with the person acting as he does, not with the belief itself.

I am sure you are aware that religions are all about feelings, some feel their religion stronger than others because their need is greater, some go overboard while others appear to do nothing, everyone takes from it what they need, no more no less, in other words a body does what a body has to do.

This is not actually true; it is another of those urban myths that atheists believe. My faith is not about how I feel, but about how I choose to live my life. Sometimes it feels good, very often it doesn't. Sometimes faith is about choosing to do the exact opposite of what our feelings want us to do.

However, you are right in suggesting that for many people their emotions take over, and they lose the capacity for rational behaviour as a result. This is, again, not a function of religion, however, but a function of humanity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think dad or AV1611VET chose to be what they are?

Not at first, but after a good regimen of electroshock indoctrination, aided by healthy injections of truth serum and followed by punitive corrections where necessary, I felt like a new man!

and do you honestly think they could change now even if they wanted too?

Oh, never! We are properly ... um ... monitored to make sure we stay on the right path.

 

[AV1611VET]

...it's obvious that you were force fed creationism.

Where did Paul get his?

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am not sure what the point is in trying to say that the Bible accords with science. Clearly it doesn't, but clearly also, I would have thought, it is not intended to. The Bible does not belong on the same shelf in any library as scientific books, and scientific books do not belong on the same shelf as the Bible.

If people wish to make non-scientific objections to the Flood story, we can address those issues.

If people wish to make Scientific objections to the Flood Story, we can address those as well.

I doubt you know God's intention for including any details at all in the story at all. But the details are there and if people want to object and say that the boat is not big enough because the given dimensions would not hold every species, then we can refer them back to the story (that they didn't actually read first) and explain that there are no sea creatures on the Ark. Or mention of "species" even.

So that alone eliminates 2/3 of their objection.
The other 1/3 is eliminated, because they didn't read the story first.
That would be part of any Scientific procedure.
1. Read the story first.
2. Document objections.

So the objection is not Scientific at all. It's an emotional objection.
So those people are visiting the wrong forum. I'm not saying they can't visit. But it's not this forums formal goal to support their emotional objections. This forum IS for Scientific discussion of Christian topics so your comments are noted to be in opposition to the forums intention.

 

[Catherineanne]

If people wish to make non-scientific objections to the Flood story, we can address those issues.

If people wish to make Scientific objections to the Flood Story, we can address those as well.

I doubt you know God's intention for including any details at all in the story at all. But the details are there and if people want to object and say that the boat is not big enough because the given dimensions would not hold every species, then we can refer them back to the story (that they didn't actually read first) and explain that there are no sea creatures on the Ark. Or mention of "species" even.

So that alone eliminates 2/3 of their objection.
The other 1/3 is eliminated, because they didn't read the story first.
That would be part of any Scientific procedure.
1. Read the story first.
2. Document objections.

So the objection is not Scientific at all. It's an emotional objection.
So those people are visiting the wrong forum. I'm not saying they can't visit. But it's not this forums formal goal to support their emotional objections. This forum IS for Scientific discussion of Christian topics so your comments are noted to be in opposition to the forums intention.

Noted. Meaningless.

 

[SkyWriting]

How can I do otherwise than let others believe as they want to?

As far as I am aware there is no process known to man to force anyone to believe anything against his will. Behaviour can be compelled, but belief cannot. We have to choose to change our minds.

Therefore, you may safely conclude that I am only expressing my own point of view, and not attempting to force anything on anyone.

The process is actually quite simple. Start at the bottom of the chart and work up. As you progressively fill a persons needs and reach the top, people will believe anything you tell them.

A persons home is one example. Another would be school. This is why most learning institutions are separate from the home and may include food and even shelter.

 

[SkyWriting]

Noted. Meaningless.

This forum IS for Scientific discussion of Christian topics so your comments are noted to be in opposition to the forums intention.

 

[SkyWriting]

Even if he is making stuff up perhaps that's what he requires to keep himself believing plus it's all made up anyway just not by him, everyone uses whatever they need from religions anyway so it shouldn't matter to anyone else?
let them believe as they want to believe and he can do the same, it's all a load of fudge anyway so what's the problem? live and let live.

I'm not saying the animals did hibernate on the Ark. I'm saying that in a closed vessel,
in the dark for months,
in close quarters
without little fresh food on a daily basis
some of the animals would find those conditions ideal for Hibernation.
In fact, that would be the logical condition for all of them to last the voyage. Perhaps that's what happened.

The most normal and natural scenario of life on the Ark for the year is that the smaller animals were eaten by the larger predators who ran out of food and eventually ate the humans and the Ark landed with just the two lions on board.
Let's be honest with ourselves. That's what really happened.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am sorry to hear that.

Or analysis of any literature.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no evidence whatsoever that such a semantic distinction would have existed when the story of Noah was written. The safest conclusion is to accept that, actually, in this context, 'kinds' is synonymous with 'species'.

The safest conclusion is the wrong one.
As you can see here, species has no connection with "Kind".

 

[SkyWriting]

It is as nonsensical as trying to argue what kind of wood the Greeks used to construct their horse, whether they used screws, nails or wood glue, and whether they varnished it when they had finished. None of that matters.

Seems you didn't read what this discussion is about either. Both the OP or the passage referred to.
The kind of wood used is listed, as is the finishing process used on the wood.
Because this thread is about the Bible and the story of the Ark,
it matters. Even when you feel, deep in your heart, it doesn't.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes perhaps that's what happened because your god is not very good at planning things,

You'll need to be more specific.