How Noah did it

[AV1611VET]

So, do you have photographs, documentation of methodology, before and after soil samples, fossil record, or any form of proof other than the bible?

No --- the Bible trumps all that mishmash you guys call "evidence to the contrary".

 

[ragarth]

No --- the Bible trumps all that mishmash you guys call "evidence to the contrary".

I disagree, but that gets into a different discussion outside the purview of this thread, I suppose. :-(

 

[peadar1987]

One thing creationists also forget is that most plant species would have been killed by being immersed in salty water for a period of several months, meaning Noah would also have had to carry samples of all of them as well, and as plants couldn't come to him, he would have had to go around the world gathering them.

Cue a flurry of "God did it somehow"s...

 

[AV1611VET]

One thing creationists also forget is that most plant species would have been killed by being immersed in salty water for a period of several months, meaning Noah would also have had to carry samples of all of them as well, and as plants couldn't come to him, he would have had to go around the world gathering them.

Cue a flurry of "God did it somehow"s...

God did it "somehow"???

My friend, before there were even plant cells, God populated this world with plants.

Remember, the dove came back with an olive leaf, but in Genesis 1, no leaves of any kind ever existed.

 

[peadar1987]

God did it "somehow"???

My friend, before there were even plant cells, God populated this world with plants.

Remember, the dove came back with an olive leaf, but in Genesis 1, no leaves of any kind ever existed.

I've read a lot of your posts, and it's apparent that you're an intelligent guy. I'm sure you realise that atheists such as myself don't regard the bible as proper evidence until it's been corroborated by other sources.

Your explanation begs the question of why God felt the need to get Noah to save two of each kind of animal. Couldn't he just have created them all afresh? And why kill everyone with a flood anyway, could he not just have popped everyone except Noah and his family out of existence?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've read a lot of your posts, and it's apparent that you're an intelligent guy.

If you say so.

I'm sure you realise that atheists such as myself don't regard the bible as proper evidence until it's been corroborated by other sources.

You're in the right place then --- here.

Your explanation begs the question of why God felt the need to get Noah to save two of each kind of animal. Couldn't he just have created them all afresh?

Easily --- but God has His own way of doing things.

And why kill everyone with a flood anyway, could he not just have popped everyone except Noah and his family out of existence?

Have you ever heard the expression: There are no atheists in foxholes?

By doing it the way He did - (that is, sending a flood) - He gave the people one last chance to make what some people call a 'deathbed confession'.

Had He have done it your way, all (or most all) would have gone to Hell.

In my opinion --- and this is just my opinion --- almost everyone (if not everyone) --- got saved before they drowned.

 

[Assyrian]

God did it "somehow"???

My friend, before there were even plant cells, God populated this world with plants.

Remember, the dove came back with an olive leaf, but in Genesis 1, no leaves of any kind ever existed.

It is amazing the way Creationists have to keep making up miracle after miracle that the bible never mentions or even hints at, just to keep their interpretation of the flood from falling apart.

I thought the reason for bringing the animals onto the ark was to preserve the different animals kinds from being wiped out. Now you are saying God had to recreate the different plant kinds anyway?

 

[LightHorseman]

Your idea is that if noah took two housecats, that 4000 years later they would have evolved into all the types of cats we have today?

Um... they would have had to evolve far faster... oops... CHANGE far faster than that... since we have 3000 year old descriptions of lions, tigers, and other feline species... So apparently the super fast evol- sorry... CHANGING suddenly stopped between the time of Noah and the time of Ashurbanipal and his beautiful lion hunting wall frieses

 

[AV1611VET]

It is amazing the way Creationists have to keep making up miracle after miracle that the bible never mentions or even hints at, just to keep their interpretation of the flood from falling apart.

Ain't it, though ---

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Assyrian]

Ain't it, though ---

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So do you think the writers of the apocryphal gospels were right to make up stories about other miracles Jesus performed, like bringing clay birds to life when he was a child? Do you think they had they a stronger basis than you, because at least they had John 21:25, whereas you do not have any biblical support for making up miracles for the flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

So do you think the writers of the apocryphal gospels were right to make up stories about other miracles Jesus performed, like bringing clay birds to life when he was a child?

They can write what they want --- but unless they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to do so, they shouldn't whine if their apocryphal gospels didn't fall under God's umbrella of preservation and make the canon.

Do you think they had they a stronger basis than you, because at least they had John 21:25, whereas you do not have any biblical support for making up miracles for the flood?

Indeed --- there is no Biblical support for assuming things like God cleaning up after Himself, or the Ark withstanding the stresses of the waters; but as I have pointed out before, to assume otherwise is much worse, and the "cure" is worse than the "disease".

For example, when questioned how all those animals ate during that year, I can't answer from Genesis --- but --- seeing how God handled similar circumstances in the Bible certainly sheds light on what He can - and has - done.

When we see how He handled the food shortage with the widow of Zarephath, or how He handled the food shortage with the 5000, we can see that handling a food shortage aboard the Ark would be no problem at all.

 

[Assyrian]

They can write what they want --- but unless they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to do so, they shouldn't whine if their apocryphal gospels didn't fall under God's umbrella of preservation and make the canon.

Well I doubt that you or I will have what we write enshrined in the pages of scripture either, but the question was whether making up loads of miracles is a good way to to handle the scripture we have?

Indeed --- there is no Biblical support for assuming things like God cleaning up after Himself,

No biblical support and no reason why God should, no reason to think that he did, other than to try to explain why the evidence we see around the world contradicts your interpretation of the passage. Now I can think of a number of reasons for God to work a miracle, to show his power, to bring judgement on sin or rescue those who trust him. But somehow, giving literalists a way out a bad interpretation does not seem high on God's list of priorities.

or the Ark withstanding the stresses of the waters;

1Pet 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

but as I have pointed out before, to assume otherwise is much worse, and the "cure" is worse than the "disease".

The disease being an interpretation of a text that simply does not fit the facts and the cure finding a better way to understand what it says? The church survived that particular cure when Copernicus showed the traditional geocentric interpretation did not fit the facts.

For example, when questioned how all those animals ate during that year, I can't answer from Genesis --- but --- seeing how God handled similar circumstances in the Bible certainly sheds light on what He can - and has - done.

When we see how He handled the food shortage with the widow of Zarephath, or how He handled the food shortage with the 5000, we can see that handling a food shortage aboard the Ark would be no problem at all.

It is the old problem of fitting all the animals, I have no problem with the idea that Noah brought enough food for the animals he had, but it does add to the problem of not having enough space for all the animals in the first place. It is even worse if you have to include dinosaurs. But I would be more concerned with what the animals ate afterwards, there were way too many predators for the number of herbivores he brought.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well I doubt that you or I will have what we write enshrined in the pages of scripture either, but the question was whether making up loads of miracles is a good way to to handle the scripture we have?

Yes.

If it isn't, then kindly tell me why we're not under five miles of water right now.

I would rather support a given passage with ten miracles, than I would make the passage allegorical.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes.

If it isn't, then kindly tell me why we're not under five miles of water right now.

I would rather support a given passage with ten miracles, than I would make the passage allegorical.

How many miracles would it take to make a seven headed lion leopard bear beast or flying subterranean human faced stinging locust horses? How about politically aware talking trees? And get them to keep quiet ever since of course. Your preference for making up miracles to prop up a shaky interpretation doesn't really measure up to the fact that scripture really does use allegory.

Nor is allegory the only other option. That is a false dichotomy. Where does the bible say the water was five miles deep? Again it is your interpretation that calls for all the extra miracles, not the bible text itself. The bible says that when God remembered Noah he sent a wind and the waters subsided. Wind wouldn't do that with water five miles deep. Especially if it was five mile deep all over the world, where would the wind blow the water to? Isn't it better to stick with what the story actually says?

 

[AV1611VET]

How many miracles would it take to make a seven headed lion leopard bear beast or flying subterranean human faced stinging locust horses? How about politically aware talking trees? And get them to keep quiet ever since of course. Your preference for making up miracles to prop up a shaky interpretation doesn't really measure up to the fact that scripture really does use allegory.

Nor is allegory the only other option. That is a false dichotomy. Where does the bible say the water was five miles deep? Again it is your interpretation that calls for all the extra miracles, not the bible text itself. The bible says that when God remembered Noah he sent a wind and the waters subsided. Wind wouldn't do that with water five miles deep. Especially if it was five mile deep all over the world, where would the wind blow the water to? Isn't it better to stick with what the story actually says?

Unless you can tell me where this water is, I'm not interested in anything else you have to say, Assyrian.

I think this is a very good question that defends the stance I take quite well.

To answer with, 'The Flood didn't happen', is not an answer.

Remember: I'm a literalist who believes it did.

So, until you can come up with a better explanation for a literalist, I'll stick to what I think happened.

That is, God cleaned it up.

But again --- please answer my question in your own words --- thank you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I would rather support a given passage with ten miracles,

To be clear, you're referring to "ten miracles" which are not mentioned in the story, but rather concocted after the fact to preserve a literalist intpertretation, right?

than I would make the passage allegorical.

Why is that?

Personally, I've always considered "why" a more important question than "how." And rather than humor the mythology by trying to figure out how it allegedly could've happened, I'm much more interested in the deeper question of why the authors of this tale (be it God, a divinely inspired human, or some random mythmaker) thought this story was worth recording.

What's your take on that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

To answer with, 'The Flood didn't happen', is not an answer.

Remember: I'm a literalist who believes it did.

And the rest of us are allegorists who believe it didn't. Why humor you?

 

[brinny]

Hi. I was reacting to this post from stormdancer0 in the pentacostal fellowship forum:

[sorry, I am not allowed to post links yet. You'll have to dig for yourself]


Since I was told that my post was a challenge to someone's faith and therefore not at its place in the fellowship forum, I'm moving my reaction here.

My reaction it the following one :


There are currently 41 species of felids known. These are 41 sets of felids that cannot interbreed and produce offspring that can breed.

This is the definition of a species.

Mules, for example, are barren hybrid of horses and donkeys. If mules could breed, that would make horses, donkeys and mules part of the same species (the same way poodles and german shepherds are still part of the "dog" species). As it is, horses and donkeys are different species, and mules are a hybrid.


So, if your theory is correct (and I did not say in my original post it was not, nor will I say it here, although I will say that I believe it to be wrong), that means that of the 2 individuals in the ark, the two felids, these 41 species were bred.

Now if you believe that the flood was 4000 years ago, that would mean there was a new species of felids every 100 years.

That would be faster than any biologist expected. and it would be proof that speciation (what you would call "evolution", I suppose) does happen.



Now in my opinion, this is not challenging your faith. I am merely following up on your idea, and following it wherever it may lead.

Are you saying that you or anyone has all the information that ever will be known about every living thing on the earth? For are there not new discoveries of "species" recently discovered that were never known about before the discovery? Are you saying that we know all we will ever need to know, that there is nothing more to be discovered? If we do not know all that will ever be known, how can we draw any conclusions about anything? But of course, like you said, you're presenting theories, right? Is that because we can not know for certain about any of these "ideas" "assumptions" that you present? THeories are just that, are they not? Just using what you have at the time and drawing some guesses from it, right? but these theories can never be 100 percent definitive, can they?

It almost sounds like one must have "faith" in the theories or those ideas that fill in the most blanks, but not all of them.

 

[Assyrian]

Unless you can tell me where this water is, I'm not interested in anything else you have to say, Assyrian.
I think this is a very good question that defends the stance I take quite well.
To answer with, 'The Flood didn't happen', is not an answer.
Remember: I'm a literalist who believes it did.
So, until you can come up with a better explanation for a literalist, I'll stick to what I think happened.
That is, God cleaned it up.
But again --- please answer my question in your own words --- thank you.

Like I said, you keep thinking the bible is describing a five mile deep global flood. but the bible never says that. If the flood was local or regional, why would there be a problem with where the water went? It is in the sea.

 

[Nathan Poe]

They can write what they want --- but unless they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to do so, they shouldn't whine if their apocryphal gospels didn't fall under God's umbrella of preservation and make the canon.

What aboutthe ones who were inspired by the Holy Ghost and still didn't make the canon?

Indeed --- there is no Biblical support for assuming things like God cleaning up after Himself, or the Ark withstanding the stresses of the waters; but as I have pointed out before, to assume otherwise is much worse, and the "cure" is worse than the "disease".

For example, when questioned how all those animals ate during that year, I can't answer from Genesis --- but --- seeing how God handled similar circumstances in the Bible certainly sheds light on what He can - and has - done.

"Similar circumstances"? AFAIK, there was only one Flood in the Bible.

When we see how He handled the food shortage with the widow of Zarephath, or how He handled the food shortage with the 5000, we can see that handling a food shortage aboard the Ark would be no problem at all.

Except those are later stories written by different authors.