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

[KerrMetric]

If you reject Scripture in one area it would seem to me you would have to reject Scripture in all areas....

Oh look - a slippery slope argument.

You do realise slippery slope arguments are not only weak they are frequently illogical.

 

[KerrMetric]

You have absolutly no evidence to show that the Flood did not take place just as the Bible says it did.

Actually the converse is true - all the evidence shows the Flood did not take place.

Then you should be able to answer the question of why Lake Van and all the other Lakes in the Mt Ararat area are made up of salt water. Why do you find fish in the Mr Ararat area that you otherwise would only find in the ocean?

Not true - lake Van is alkaline but not salty like the ocean. Not all salt lakes have an oceanic origin. Lake Van has no outlets hence the salt levels.

And the herring member that is in the lake is a relative of the Bleak a European freshwater herring family member and NOT a Clupea species of marine herring.

Jeez - typical case of believing what you want to John - facts be damned.

 

[KerrMetric]

But the flooding has not had as much of an impact on other parts of the world. Although we have had a lot of flooding here in Ohio in recent years.

LOL. I don't think the Miami or Cuyahoga rivers bursting their banks due to heavy rainfall is related to sea level changes in the past 10 millenia.

 

[JohnR7]

Actually the converse is true - all the evidence shows the Flood did not take place.

I get really, really, really tired of having to explain this over and over again to person after person after person.

The Bible is true. People may not understand the Bible, but that does not make the Bible any less true.

The ONLY thing that has been falsified by science and geology is a interpretation of the Bible. But that does not make the Bible any less true.

In fact it is established that there is NOTHING in the Bible that science can falsify.
Science in a lot of different ways shows the Bible to be true.
Science does not and can not falsify the Bible.

The Bible was written 3500 years ago. It is not the first written history, but it gives us more insight into the people 3500 years ago, then anything else.

There are archeology findings from even the last 500, 1,000 or 1,500 years.
Archaeology does not give us anywhere near the information that recorded history gives us.

What would we know about Troy if all we had was the Archaeology? Not nearly as much as we know with Homer's written story about Troy.

 

[JohnR7]

LOL. I don't think the Miami or Cuyahoga rivers bursting their banks due to heavy rainfall is related to sea level changes in the past 10 millenia.

Here is a map of Flordia that shows the difference before and after the flood.
In the next 100 years there is a chance all of Flordia will go underwater.

 

[JohnR7]

Not true

If you want to ignore the evidence for Noah's flood, then ignore it.

 

[vitodabona]

What would we know about Troy if all we had was the Archaeology? Not nearly as much as we know with Homer's written story about Troy.

John the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Bible are not recorded history they are stories about places and people that may have existed. For example the latest findings out of Troy site; state that the 6th layer, the one believed to be contemporary with Homer’s Troy was destroyed by an earth quake and not destroyed by human action. There is no evidence of a 10 year battle that took place in the Greek dark ages at the Troy site.

Granted these stories give us enormous insight into the mind set of these ancient people but in no way constitutes history in the modern sense of the term. The lessons present in the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the bible are no less true, but they are fiction.

 

[JohnR7]

John the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Bible are not recorded history they are stories about places and people that may have existed.

They use to think that Troy was all fiction, before they found the city. But now that Troy has been found, no one doubts it's existance.

The Bible is a accurate history book and the last 200 years of archaeology have shown the Bible to be accurate as a history book. It is considered to be MORE accurate then the anglo saxton chronicals that were recorded stating in around 1,000 ad.,

For example the latest findings out of Troy site; state that the 6th layer, the one believed to be contemporary with Homer’s Troy was destroyed by an earth quake and not destroyed by human action.

What they found was that the sixth layer was destoyed by fire and the city never full recovered after that. Earth quakes do not carry off all the wealth of a city, when you lose a war, then they plunder your city and carry off all of your wealth.

There was a war, Troy was plundered and destoryed. There is no reason not to believe Homer's story of Troy. The people we read about in the story are now accepted as actual historical people. Archeology alone can not tell us what Homer's story tells us. In fact it we were required to read Homer when I was in High School. I do not know if they are still required to read it.

Granted these stories give us enormous insight into the mind set of these ancient people but in no way constitutes history in the modern sense of the term.

As you say they "give us enormous insight into the mind set of these ancient people". People who do not understand written history do not realize the "enormous insight" we receive from written history.

In doing a study on the beginning of civilization, written history is very valuable to help us better understand the beginning of the modern world.

 

[Amaziah]

Oh look - a slippery slope argument.

You do realise slippery slope arguments are not only weak they are frequently illogical.

Please explain to me how the argument is illogical.

Either God is a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-seeing and all-capable God in control of everything or He is not God.

Even science has to believe in a God of this type because science has to assume some base structures of the universe of all living and non-living things. Something has to be constant for science to operate at it's base foundations.

Just because certain things in the Bible have not yet been revealed does not make the Bible false. Everything that the Bible speaks of is accurate and true in the way that it speaks of and will be revealed as true in the future.

Check out what Lee Stobel "The Case for A Creator" or Josh McDowell "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" have to say. Both were once athiests.

Faith bugs people because they cannot measure it. Even science has a measure of faith involved in it. We tend not to accept something as true unless we can quantify it with value in someway or somehow. The only way faith is measured is by God, "... God has allotted to each a measure of faith." (Romans 12:3).

I am not saying to abandon all reason, because God gave us reason. But to abondon faith in Scripture because our reason cannot comprehend how something may have happend sets man up to be God and that is really dangerous.

 

[Amaziah]

John the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Bible are not recorded history they are stories about places and people that may have existed. For example the latest findings out of Troy site; state that the 6th layer, the one believed to be contemporary with Homer’s Troy was destroyed by an earth quake and not destroyed by human action. There is no evidence of a 10 year battle that took place in the Greek dark ages at the Troy site.

Granted these stories give us enormous insight into the mind set of these ancient people but in no way constitutes history in the modern sense of the term. The lessons present in the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the bible are no less true, but they are fiction.

The Bible is recorded history ... you better check your facts. It is history as to how the world began and how God choose to redeem all of creation through His one son Jesus Christ. It also records by prophecy when and how the world as we know it will end and how his kingdom will be established.

It is also backed up by witnesses such as Josephus, Origin, Aristotle and so on. You better check your facts in the future before you make a blanket statement like that.

 

[coyoteBR]

The problem is that you can not use our mindset, our definitions, and apply to people from other culture and other time.
For instance, I’ve read a collection on fantastic literature that states that what we know as “non-fiction” appeared on XIII century. Before that, people accepted – and expected – narratives to have some creative interference from the author.

So, under this light, the question is: in Jesus Time, there was the concept of “literal”?

 

[Baggins]

Thanks for that informative post. I do not know enough first hand about what did or did not happen with the flood, but you have given me a direction to at least look into and verify.

There are some Christians at my work who are die hard Hovind people. I have heard him proclaimed a fraud here, and celebrated at work. I do not have much details for or against, since I have not looked into his teachings, nor am I an in-the-field science guy. Is there something you would like me to challenge the Christians at work with that would be a slam dunk?

You can ask them to explain the type of rock known as chalk in terms of a global flood.

A simple google search will show you that chalk is made up of the microscopic skeletons of uncountable numbers of single celled marine creatures known as coccoliths.

The estimated deposition rate of the these rocks ( from experiments performed by members of the multinational Ocean drilling Project ) is 160,000 years per metre.

This means that the chalks of southern England are beteween 3 and 5 million years old, ergo YEC is wrong.

The only possible flood geologist comeback to this is that the chalks are then either pre or post flood and the earth is older than 6000 years, in which case the onus is on them to tell us which layers were laid down by the flood. This is the problem that persueded the flood geolgists 200 years ago that the old earth is the only explaination, they could not find any credible layer that could be the flood.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I get really, really, really tired of having to explain this over and over again to person after person after person.

You are going to have to keep saying it, because you have never taken the time to substantiate your claims.

The Bible is true. People may not understand the Bible, but that does not make the Bible any less true.

No, the Bible contains SOME truth, this does not make the whole thing true. Much of it is contradictory, some of it has been outright falsified(like the flood0< and most of it is allegorical in nature and not meant as literal truth in any case.

Some of it is actually based on actual historical events, but as we have been over time and tiem again, a story that mentions real life people and places does not make the story true. Spiderman, New York, where, we've been down this road with you before.

The ONLY thing that has been falsified by science and geology is a interpretation of the Bible. But that does not make the Bible any less true.

NO, the actual statements themselves have been falsified. There was NO global flood. This is not an opinion or interpretation, it is fact. There is no evidence in the geology of the world to support this, and mounds of evidence that denies it. You have interpreted the Bible to mean that it was a flood of all of Noahs world, but this is very clearly interpretation. The actual passage states the flood covered the world.

In fact it is established that there is NOTHING in the Bible that science can falsify.

Enh! Wrong and you know it. from the flood, to a 6000 year old earth, to a flat earth, to geocentricism, much that is stated in the Bible is false.

Science in a lot of different ways shows the Bible to be true.

No, science, in the form of archaeology, and soe recent genetic histories have deomstrated the veracity of PARTS of the Bible. This does not make the Bible as a whole, true. Spiderman, New York, Where. all over again.

Science does not and can not falsify the Bible.

Science can and has falisfied portions of the Bible. And much of the rest of the Bible is unverfied at this time.

The Bible was written 3500 years ago. It is not the first written history, but it gives us more insight into the people 3500 years ago, then anything else.

It gives insight into a specific culture. A small subset of the total human population of the time. There were existing societies in Asia, Europe, the Americas, and many other locations that are not mentioned in the slightest by the Bible.

But if you want information of the early Hebrews, the OT of the Bible is one of the best sources around.

There are archeology findings from even the last 500, 1,000 or 1,500 years.
Archaeology does not give us anywhere near the information that recorded history gives us.

What would we know about Troy if all we had was the Archaeology? Not nearly as much as we know with Homer's written story about Troy.

That I'll leave to an archeologist to discuss. In general I would say this is true for recent history, but gets les and less true as time goes on. Written documents get rarer and rarer the farther back you go, untill eventually all you have is archaeological evidence.

John, this is your usual diatribe. You make a lot of claims, but don't substantiate any of them. Are you ever going start providing evidence for your claims? or just continue to say "this is so" with no basis for the claim?

 

[JohnR7]

You are going to have to keep saying it

Yes, I guess I am, because no one else seems to be able to get the job done. So someone has to take a stand for the truth.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Yes, I guess I am, because no one else seems to be able to get the job done. So someone has to take a stand for the truth.

I admire your dedication.

 

[vitodabona]

They use to think that Troy was all fiction, before they found the city. But now that Troy has been found, no one doubts it's existance.

The Bible is a accurate history book and the last 200 years of archaeology have shown the Bible to be accurate as a history book. It is considered to be MORE accurate then the anglo saxton chronicals that were recorded stating in around 1,000 ad.,

The bible contains some historically accurate items, that does not make it a history book. It is not uncommon for works of fiction to reference real places, people and events like Captain America taking on Hitler and NAZI's during WWII. For this same reason the Iliad is not regarded as a history book, but rather classical fiction with historic value. There are plenty of unverifiable and falsified items in the bible, namely most of Old Testament, as some people in this thread have already stated.

What they found was that the sixth layer was destoyed by fire and the city never full recovered after that. Earth quakes do not carry off all the wealth of a city, when you lose a war, then they plunder your city and carry off all of your wealth.

There was a war, Troy was plundered and destoryed. There is no reason not to believe Homer's story of Troy. The people we read about in the story are now accepted as actual historical people. Archeology alone can not tell us what Homer's story tells us. In fact it we were required to read Homer when I was in High School. I do not know if they are still required to read it.

John I may be mistaken on this point. (Damn history channel's Digging for History: the Trojan War). There seem to be debate which layer would be Homer's Troy. I have read a few articles that say the 6th was destroyed by natural disaster, but the 7th by war etc. The History channel’s documentary Monday night said there was no evidence for destruction by war in a layer that would be contemporary with Homer’s Troy. There is probably some controversy with the dating of the layers, Schliemann did some sloppy work and tore up the site. Wiki has a piece on the historical acuracy of the Iliad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#The_Iliad_as_essentially_historical

edited to fix fonts

 

[Amaziah]

You are going to have to keep saying it, because you have never taken the time to substantiate your claims.



No, the Bible contains SOME truth, this does not make the whole thing true. Much of it is contradictory, some of it has been outright falsified(like the flood0< and most of it is allegorical in nature and not meant as literal truth in any case.

Some of it is actually based on actual historical events, but as we have been over time and tiem again, a story that mentions real life people and places does not make the story true. Spiderman, New York, where, we've been down this road with you before.


NO, the actual statements themselves have been falsified. There was NO global flood. This is not an opinion or interpretation, it is fact. There is no evidence in the geology of the world to support this, and mounds of evidence that denies it. You have interpreted the Bible to mean that it was a flood of all of Noahs world, but this is very clearly interpretation. The actual passage states the flood covered the world.


Enh! Wrong and you know it. from the flood, to a 6000 year old earth, to a flat earth, to geocentricism, much that is stated in the Bible is false.


No, science, in the form of archaeology, and soe recent genetic histories have deomstrated the veracity of PARTS of the Bible. This does not make the Bible as a whole, true. Spiderman, New York, Where. all over again.


Science can and has falisfied portions of the Bible. And much of the rest of the Bible is unverfied at this time.


It gives insight into a specific culture. A small subset of the total human population of the time. There were existing societies in Asia, Europe, the Americas, and many other locations that are not mentioned in the slightest by the Bible.

But if you want information of the early Hebrews, the OT of the Bible is one of the best sources around.



That I'll leave to an archeologist to discuss. In general I would say this is true for recent history, but gets les and less true as time goes on. Written documents get rarer and rarer the farther back you go, untill eventually all you have is archaeological evidence.

John, this is your usual diatribe. You make a lot of claims, but don't substantiate any of them. Are you ever going start providing evidence for your claims? or just continue to say "this is so" with no basis for the claim?

Nothing in the Bible has ever been falsified and it does not just contain "some" truth ... it is truth. I think you may need to pick up the Bible and do some investigative truth if you are going to make these kind of statements. If you want an additional source, Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell may be a good thing for you to investigate as well as Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator.

Most everyone here continues to insist that the Bible is not history, but it is redemptive history between God and his lost creation - man. People need to give the Bible an honest hearing and reading before discounting it because of their own or someone else's human reasoning. Give it an honest hearing and let the Holy Spirit reveal who the Creator is and what He has done. Nothing anyone here has said discounts the revelatory and redemptive truth of the Bible.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Yes, I guess I am, because no one else seems to be able to get the job done. So someone has to take a stand for the truth.

Nice quote mining. Great way to continue dodging our repeated requests for you to substantiate your claims...

 

[OdwinOddball]

Nothing in the Bible has ever been falsified and it does not just contain "some" truth ... it is truth. I think you may need to pick up the Bible and do some investigative truth if you are going to make these kind of statements. If you want an additional source, Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell may be a good thing for you to investigate as well as Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator.

See, thats the bigest difference between most Creationists that visit here, and those that support evolution.

The Creationists only read one side of the story. If it doesn't support the Bible, it is often thrown out by default no matter how well evidenced or accepted it is.

The "evolutionists" on the other hand, are far more likely to have read from both sides.

In this case i have already read The Case for a Creator, and Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Both of them are filled with fallacious information, with little to no evidence to support their claims.

Lee Strobel in parrticular is not someone to look to for valid information. Yes, he was formerly an Atheist, he converted to Christianity nearly 15 years before writing his book. The "scientists" he interviews in the book almost to a man work for the Discovery Institue, and are not qualified to provide professional commentaty on the subjects Lee interviews them about. Strobel did not interview any respected scientists for his book. He had a conclusion he wanted to write about, and cherry picked people that would substantiate it for him, even though none of them can provide evidence to support their claims.

You have to open your mind. If soemone claims something, do not accept it just becuase it happens to agree with your own views. Ask questions, and follow thru with your own research. This is what seperates the practitioners and devotees of real Science, and those that support Pseudo-Science and Intellectual Dishonesty like ID and other forms of Creationism.

Stop trying to use a 2000+ year old book written by a primtive patriarchal bronze age tribe as a guidebook for modern day science and morality. The world has changed since then, time to catch up.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Since you are new hear, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that like most first time Creationists viewers you have never done any form of in depth study as to what evolution actually is, what evidence is out there to support it, or the vast amounts of research and work that has been done in Geology, Cosmology, Biology, Astronomy, and other discplines that is in direct conflict with a literal Bible and the bulk of Creationism.

If you are actually here to learn about the reality of our world, and not just to plug your ears and preach the same old PRATTS, read thru the CRe/Evo archives thread stickied at the top of this forum. There is a wealth of information contained within that will provide endless material for you to examine and think about.