Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Back to the drawing board.....The Ark was a box, so there could hardly be a worse design. Made of wood, and being so large, it would naturally leak. It it had a keel, the water could accumulate in a trough where it could be bailed. In a large box, the water would be spread out where it couldn't be bailed out.
I worked up a calculation once upon a time based on cedar (since we don't really know what "gopher wood" was) and the idea that the Ark was really a raft with superstructure. That is, the part of the Ark below the waterline was solid wood. It wouldn't leak, and it would withstand considerable more flexing than a conventional hull.The Ark was a box, so there could hardly be a worse design. Made of wood, and being so large, it would naturally leak. It it had a keel, the water could accumulate in a trough where it could be bailed. In a large box, the water would be spread out where it couldn't be bailed out.
Matthew 24:36-39 (ESV)
"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Here Jesus is speaking of a time and an event that He seems to believe actually happened and is representative of how it will be at His 2nd coming. If Jesus said it, it is reason enough to believe it - the ark did not break in half - and we're all here today as evidence it did not.
Ted,
I'm not sure you bothered to read my post except to see the name "Augustine" and turn up your nose. It's not about "what the Catholic organization believes." I am not Catholic. I used a Dominican site as a source on the history of Christian theology. When Protestants get their act together and provide comparable resources, I will use them. You seem to regard non-creationists as hecklers who just came in the door at the last minute. This isn't true at all.
Aurelius Augustine's City of God is a seminal work of Christian theology. Protestant theology goes back to Augustine. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk before the Reformation. The Protestant reformers adopted Augustine's theology lock, stock and barrel, no questions asked, with a few obvious exceptions. If you are a Protestant, this is where your theology comes from as well.
The fact is that Augustine, the seminal theologian in the history of Christian thought, realized that the six days of creation probably isn't literal. He realized this despite the immense limitations of the physical and biological sciences during his lifetime. It is disappointing that so many living today don't share his insight.
I don't think anyone supposes that Augustine was an "old earther." What the study of Augustine does reveal is that he did not take the same line on it as modern YECs. There is no hint in Augustine that belief in YECism is necessary for salvation, nor any justification for the hostility and even violence routinely meted out by YECs today to those Christians who don't "believe the Bible"--which why, I suspect, people like yourself "turn up your nose" at him. As for the Fathers, you have people like Clement, mentored by Peter and selected by him to be sucessor Bishop of Rome. What could he possibly know about Christian doctrine? Or Ignatius and Polycarp, students of John the Apostle himself? Might as well throw their writings right in the trash. Which is better, I suppose, than misrepresenting them like one poster (on this very board) who tried to convince me that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believe in Sola Scriptura even though they taught something else.Hi dale,
Maybe, maybe not. I'm curious. When Martin Luther wrote his manifesto, was he supporting what he'd been taught under the Augustinian system or was he denying it? I can't speak for protestants and what they believe. I've always been the kind to see the world in only two colors. Those who are born again and those who aren't. Protestants, baptists, Catholic are just some form of separation that shouldn't exist among those who are born again. Those who are children of God are enjoined by the Holy Spirit, who, according to Jesus, leads those so filled, into all truth.
I'm sorry that you believe that I merely read the word Augustine and turned up my nose. I have actually turned up my nose at a lot of what the ECF's have written. As I said, I'm a straight Scripture kind of guy. I take very seriously what Paul said. It is the Scriptures which are good for correction, rebuke and training so that one may be found righteous. Not the writings of the ECF's or the book of Mormon or the Quaran or any other writings of men. All Scripture is God-breathed. Not the writings of the ECF's or the book of Mormon or the Quaran. These other writings are just the writings of men using their own natural knowledge and wisdom. Now, some of them may be correct in their understanding, but some of them may not. The test is whether or not it align's with the Scriptures. According to Paul, the Bereans were most noble because they put even his words to the test of Scripture.
Listen, I'm sure that Augustine was a great man of faith in his day. I'm just as sure that all the popes that have ever served in the line of Catholicism have all been great men of faith in their time. However, just for your enjoyment, here's an article that actually seems to make the point that Augustine isn't the old earther that many believe him to have been. The problem is, and this is always true of ancient writings outside of the Scriptures, we don't have the ability to ask the author what he actually meant when his writings can be ambiguous. So, wise men read the words and pore over them and then try to determine the truth. They may get it right and they may not and there's honestly no way to know.
Augustine on the Days of Creation
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
Hello sir! Thank you for your perspective on the subject. All the same I'll hold fast to believing it truly happened since it is written in scripture and Jesus himself made reference to it in describing His second coming.Jesus referred to the story of Noah as a story that His listeners would be familiar with. He was trying to make a moral point and issue a warning to the Israelites at that time. This tells us nothing about what is historically true.
I don't think anyone supposes that Augustine was an "old earther." What the study of Augustine does reveal is that he did not take the same line on it as modern YECs. There is no hint in Augustine that belief in YECism is necessary for salvation, nor any justification for the hostility and even violence routinely meted out by YECs today to those Christians who don't "believe the Bible"--which why, I suspect, people like yourself "turn up your nose" at him. As for the Fathers, you have people like Clement, mentored by Peter and selected by him to be sucessor Bishop of Rome. What could he possibly know about Christian doctrine? Or Ignatius and Polycarp, students of John the Apostle himself? Might as well throw their writings right in the trash. Which is better, I suppose, than misrepresenting them like one poster (on this very board) who tried to convince me that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believe in Sola Scriptura even though they taught something else.
I am not aware that Augustine wrote about the Flood or the ark, although I agree that he probably thought it was a real event. Whether he thought the Genesis story a "literal" account, rather than merely historical is by no means certain. Sorry to be off topic; I thought I was merely agreeing with you about Augustine not likely being an "old Earther" and musing about why so many creationists dismiss the Fathers.Hi speedwell,
Just a head's up. You need to direct this post to dale. I was responding to his post in which he was using Augustine to support that the Genesis account shouldn't be taken literally. As far as I know, he was using that reference to answer some of the statements I had made earlier as regards the creation event. None of the stuff that you bring up about why you believe that Augustine came up in this discussion isn't in keeping with what the chain of discussion has been about. Perhaps you should ask dale if he wrote his reference concerning Augustine to try and show me that Augustine didn't believe in a young earth. I could be mistaken, but I don't think his reference has anything to do with the flood and more specifically Noah's ark. Did Augustine write anything about the ark of the flood?
As far as I know, Augustine did believe the flood account to be a literal account.
Thank you.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
phooey, wrong section to reply to this.. ..... (I just checked what section this is in, and it's not the controversial one) ....musing about why so many creationists dismiss the Fathers.
I am not aware that Augustine wrote about the Flood or the ark, although I agree that he probably thought it was a real event. Whether he thought the Genesis story a "literal" account, rather than merely historical is by no means certain. Sorry to be off topic; I thought I was merely agreeing with you about Augustine not likely being an "old Earther" and musing about why so many creationists dismiss the Fathers.
Citing the experience of the largest wooden ships ever built is not mocking Christianity.
Adstar, what do you think of Exodus 19:4?
Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.
So do you think that if you don't interpret all scripture literally then you are not "trusting the Bible"? I don't think either of us take Ex 19:4 literally, yet if you don't, by your own approch, I might respond:
If you do not trust in the Bible accout, where God says that He flew the Jews out of Egypt with giant eagles, like in the Hobbit as said in Exodus then you do not trust in the Word of God and therefore you do not have faith in the Word of God.. This is plain facts.. I am not making anything up am i....
Well, do you trust the word of God or not?
In Christ-
Papias
‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.
There was plenty of Cedar trees in Lebanon.Is there that much wood in the Middle East?
There was plenty of Cedar trees in Lebanon.
Ezekiel 31:8b
No tree in God's own garden was so beautiful.
9 I made it beautiful, with spreading branches.
It was the envy of every tree in Eden, the garden of God.
Yes, Solomon used them to build his house and the temple of God. The forests are gone but a few trees remain so we can see what they look like.Were there plenty of cedars in Lebanon?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?