Ideal Designs for Noah's Ark

[Aussie Pete]

It's not really an issue about whether any of those individuals were real. Ultimately it's an argument about the text itself. Are those stories accounts of those (very likely) real people written according to the historiographic standards of the day? Or are they literal and inerrant--meaning that you can decode things from them that may not be directly related to the narrative? As, for example, YECs decode the age of the Earth, which nowhere stated or considered in the Bible.

It's not easy. I can demonstrate from the Bible that Noah's flood was the second, not the first flood. That's how I understand the apparent discrepancy between genealogies and the geological evidence. I don't believe in billions of years of earth's existence. But it's more than 6,000!

 

[Strathos]

It's not easy. I can demonstrate from the Bible that Noah's flood was the second, not the first flood.

Really, I'd be interested in hearing this.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Really, I'd be interested in hearing this.

Genesis 1:2 could be just as accurately translated, "The earth became formless and void". This means that the earth had structure and was not empty. So it is reasonable to conclude that the waters covering the earth were the cause of the "formless and void" state of the earth.

There was no light. Isaiah 14:12 and the verses following refer to Lucifer, the star of the morning. Lucifer means light bearer. Many Christians (including me) believe the chapter has dual meaning. It refers to the king of Babylon but also to Satan. Satan was Lucifer. It is possible that there was no external light, other than the stars, as Lucifer was the light to the world. When he was cast down, the light was made darkness. Lucifer became Satan, the adversary.

God created light for the earth. This is an interim measure as the new heavens and new earth will not need created light. (Revelation 22:5)

This is not a new concept.

For a far more comprehensive explanation, look up pre-Adamic creation, "Gap Theory" or even better, Watchman Nee, "The Mystery of Creation".

 

[Strathos]

Interesting.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My only interest in such issues is to help, if I can, believers who are not strong in faith. Satan's greatest weapon is doubt and unbelief. That's how he tricked Eve and corrupted Adam. " (Genesis 3:1). He also tried the same strategy with the Lord Jesus, "If you are the Son of God....." There have been attacks on the veracity of God's word since Adam's day and it's even more intense now. If ever there was a time to stand on God's word, it is now. We are in the age when people will not endure sound doctrine and are flocking to Christian Entertainment Centres (one church locally actually calls itself that). It is no surprise to me that deception is everywhere. I was told by a young believer that it was fine to be an unmarried mother, living with the child's father but not married. Newsflash. No, it's not fine by God.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Genesis 1:2 could be just as accurately translated, "The earth became formless and void". This means that the earth had structure and was not empty. So it is reasonable to conclude that the waters covering the earth were the cause of the "formless and void" state of the earth.

There was no light. Isaiah 14:12 and the verses following refer to Lucifer, the star of the morning. Lucifer means light bearer. Many Christians (including me) believe the chapter has dual meaning. It refers to the king of Babylon but also to Satan. Satan was Lucifer. It is possible that there was no external light, other than the stars, as Lucifer was the light to the world. When he was cast down, the light was made darkness. Lucifer became Satan, the adversary.

God created light for the earth. This is an interim measure as the new heavens and new earth will not need created light. (Revelation 22:5)

This is not a new concept.

For a far more comprehensive explanation, look up pre-Adamic creation, "Gap Theory" or even better, Watchman Nee, "The Mystery of Creation".

That's a very tenuous, convoluted interpretation. Lots of words need to have their meaning twisted, which is very funny as a support for a literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's a very tenuous, convoluted interpretation. Lots of words need to have their meaning twisted, which is very funny as a support for a literal interpretation of scripture.

And your expertise in this is.....?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And your expertise in this is.....?

In what? I'd happily wager that whatever "this" is, my expertise is deeper than yours.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In what? I'd happily wager that whatever "this" is, my expertise is deeper than yours.

*sigh* my post with respect to the interpretation of Genesis 1:2. Your expertise may very well be greater than mine in every possible way. I have very few advantages over you. I know God. I know the Lord Jesus. I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth. I don't have to know everything. I know the One who does.

 

[Strathos]

That's a very tenuous, convoluted interpretation. Lots of words need to have their meaning twisted, which is very funny as a support for a literal interpretation of scripture.

I find different interpretations of Genesis to be fascinating, actually.

 

[Speedwell]

I find different interpretations of Genesis to be fascinating, actually.

Like all good religious texts. Like the "garden" story, for instance. Almost every time I read it I see a new angle on it that I hadn't thought of before.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I find different interpretations of Genesis to be fascinating, actually.

So do I. But that doesn't mean weak interpretations should be given any more credence than others.