Noah's Ark

[GREG]

is all ok in here

 

[GREG]

it got quiet.......... so i guess all is good. please dont be hateful, thanks

 

[Firscherscherling]

I've asked the Noah question before, and in a nutshell this is what the gambit of responses were:

1. There are plenty of folks who do the math and actually try to say that it was possible for Noah to put everything on the ark. Basically they say that there was plenty of room for everything and all of the food needed. For things that couldn't fit, plants, fish and the like, excuses are made like 'they survived on mats of floating debris'. This would be the explanation for things like plants and microorganisms, though it actually can't take care of them all.
2. Some even lump dinosaurs into the mix. Yes, that's right. Dinosaurs on the ark.
3. No explanation is given for how fresh water fishes survived.
4. To fit every species on the ark, there had to have been less biodiversity. For example, you wouldn't have had thousands of different species of beetle, just a couple. Then they would have evolved into more species. Yes, I am serious. Evolution as justification.
5. The fact that Noah's family committed incest for generations in order to repopulate the earth is justified in this case.
6. Some try to add all mannner of their own interpretation to the "absolutely factual word of God' by saying things like "it was just a localized flood'. This makes them feel better about it somehow. Just exactly why that doesn't ruin the whole story I have no idea.

Needless to say, all of the discussion left me even more confused about the Christian viewpoint than before.

 

[kimber1]

okay, i have a question. what is "local"? doesn't the Bibe say that Gen. 7:4 .....and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.

Face of the earth? would that not mean the entire earth?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It seems to me that some of the arguments here belong in apologetics. It fact it seems to me that many of John's posts here belong in apologetics. If any one wants to discuss the science or lack of it behind creationists claims about Noah's flood this would seem to be the right place but I wonder what John's long post about the mind of Christ has to do with Noah's flood.

It is clear that Biblical literatlists come up with very different interpretations of the Bible. John's interpretation is that the flood was local. The YECs all interpret the flood as global. I would ask John if that means he thinks that the YECs with their different intrepretation won't get raptured but that belongs in apologetics. I have seen the YECs on AiG accuse OECs of false apologetics. I guess even if the one of the literalist camps is correct the other is in for a big surprise someday.

At least a local flood does not violate many of the laws of physics as does the worldwide flood though I think there are still some problems with John's version.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

Ok tough guy: prove it!

Given that we know that bats are not birds, BUZZZZZ

Ad Hoc arguement, glass alibi. Picture this: You go before the judgment throne of God. He turns out to be a pretty Big Guy, you are only as tall as His knee. But your standing and He is sitting on His throne, so you can look Him in the eye if you want. Are you really going to say: I did not believe in you, because I did not think bats were birds? That and all your other glass alibi's are going to shatter into a thousand peices and be worthless to you on that day.

As far at the "tough guy" thing. I do not like to be a "tough guy" but I have to do what I have to do to deal with you people. There are a lot of hard headed, stubborn people in this world. If you qualify as one, I will leave up to you to decide.

that Pi does not equal three

It does if you take into consideration the thickness of the vessel.

rabbits don't chew a cud

Yes they do.

What other glass alibi's do you have to try to use as a excuse for not trusting and putting your faith, hope and love in the Living God who created the Universe and who created you?

 

[GREG]

Dinos were on the ark...... wow thats a new for me. it doesnt rain saltwater and it was God who wanted all land ceatures 2 by 2. never mentioned fish.

 

[GREG]

ok lets calm down please and not attack one another, please

 

[JohnR7]

okay, i have a question. what is "local"? doesn't the Bibe say that Gen. 7:4 .....and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.

Face of the earth? would that not mean the entire earth?

The word "earth" here in the Hebrew is: "Adamia". It is a referance to the Land of Eden. The area between the Tigris and the Euphrates river that was assigned to Adam. At first Adam was given some very furtile ground at the river head. The Garden of Eden. But he was banned from there and was then given the Tigris Euprates Valley. It was actually a nice peice of real estate, but not as nice as the Garden of Eden. It was hotter, dryer.

The next best thing to the garden of Eden we are told are the Great White Mountains in Lebanon, where you will find some patches left of the great cedar trees of Lebanon. I ran across that when I was working on a project for our sunday school teacher training class.

 

[JohnR7]

It seems to me that some of the arguments here belong in apologetics. It fact it seems to me that many of John's posts here belong in apologetics. If any one wants to discuss the science or lack of it behind creationists claims about Noah's flood this would seem to be the right place but I wonder what John's long post about the mind of Christ has to do with Noah's flood.

Actually, the mind of Christ has everything to do with the Flood of Noah. Why do you think there was a flood? Because Adam and Eve had fallen from the Grace of God. They no longer reflected God. They no longer had the mind that God created them with.

That is why Jesus is the second Adam, He came to restore us and to restore our mind to right thinking. The Ark is a Metaphore or a shaddow and a type of Christ. Those who are safe in the Ark, or who are safe in Christ will be protected from the things that are about to fall upon this world. Adam and Eve were to live forever. Those who are redeemed will receive eternal life in and though Christ.

Here is a web site that seems to explain it pretty good: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/Genesis_8.shtml

 

[Firscherscherling]

Dinos were on the ark...... wow thats a new for me. it doesnt rain saltwater and it was God who wanted all land ceatures 2 by 2. never mentioned fish.

It really doesn't matter. If you flood the earth with fresh water, you are going to kill off many species that cannot live in it. The same is true for salt water. But the general assumption is that the volume of existing salt water along with surface salt on land, would be enough to make it a salt-water flood. And, yes, this would in fact kill all plant life on earth as well as contaminating all of the land.

Why would God call for loading only the land creatures 2-by-2? Clearly the person writing the story was not considering the fallacy of the story either because it was not meant to be taken literally, or becuase he simply was not thinking about or was ignorant of the tale's inherent contradictions.

 

[JohnR7]

Why would God call for loading only the land creatures 2-by-2? Clearly the person writing the story was not considering the fallacy of the story either because it was not meant to be taken literally, or becuase he simply was not thinking about or was ignorant of the tale's inherent contradictions.

Let me see if I understand you right. The God who created the Universe can do nothing. But man, in the name of science can do anything. Answer any question and solve any problem. For a price of course.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Let me see if I understand you right. The God who created the Universe can do nothing. But man, in the name of science can do anything. Answer any question and solve any problem. For a price of course.

Do you have a split personality or what? You claim to believe in a local flood and yet jump to defend YEC nonsense that has nothing to do with your local flood.

On the biogeography thread

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=811375#post811375

you wrote

They can claim whatever they want to claim. There is no way all the life on earth was on Noah's Ark. Only the Biodiversification of life from the Land of Eden or the Land of Adamia. This is a symbolic representation of all the life on the earth though. But in a literal sense a much smaller representive of life is sufficent to get the shaddow and type to work.

Now here you seem to be defending the idea that all life on earth was on Noah's Ark. While you claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the Bible you sometimes seem to be defending different interpretations yourself. I find it at least a little confusing.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

Now here you seem to be defending the idea that all life on earth was on Noah's Ark. While you claim that there is only one possible interpretation of the Bible you sometimes seem to be defending different interpretations yourself. I find it at least a little confusing.

http://www.fmnh.org/vanishing_treasures/Origins_3.htm

The very foundation of Darwinism was the biodiversification of life. So what I believe should not be difficult for you to understand. The people who were destroyed, and the animals that were saved were from one biodiversified area, known as Eden or the Land of Adamia.

There was world wide flooding, at the end of the last ice age. But the date that science has for that, does not line up with the date we have for Noah's flood.

What people keep forgetting is that God is steadfast and consistant. He does not change. What He did yesterday, He will do today. What He does in the life of others, He will do in your life.

 

[Firscherscherling]

I have to agree that these posts are nonsensical and contradictory. First it is said the bible is the unqualified word of God, then comes a feverish description of how the Noah story is imprecise, even using evolution as an explanation.

Anyway, in terms of your question about why God would not have put everything on the ark, I ask you this: If he wasn't going to put everything on the ark, then why have a freaking ark in the first place? Yep, you can say he is all powerful and can do anything, but why bother having the ark at all if you can do anything? Why not just kill everything and start from scratch? Why not just wave a hand and fix everything? What possible purpose would there be to having some guy build a boat to save a few things and then just save the rest yourself?

Nonsense!

 

[JohnR7]

Why not just kill everything and start from scratch? Why not just wave a hand and fix everything? What possible purpose would there be to having some guy build a boat to save a few things and then just save the rest yourself?

I guess it is a little bit to deep for you to understand. If you can not grasp the sunday school material, how do you expect us to promote you?

 

[PhantomLlama]

Ad Hoc arguement, glass alibi. Picture this: You go before the judgment throne of God. He turns out to be a pretty Big Guy, you are only as tall as His knee. But your standing and He is sitting on His throne, so you can look Him in the eye if you want. Are you really going to say: I did not believe in you, because I did not think bats were birds? That and all your other glass alibi's are going to shatter into a thousand peices and be worthless to you on that day.

Because of the errors he pointed out the bible cannot be absolute truth. Your threats about how he will have to answer to God for his point of view are irrelevant, and have no effect on his argument, which stands thus far.

As far at the "tough guy" thing. I do not like to be a "tough guy" but I have to do what I have to do to deal with you people. There are a lot of hard headed, stubborn people in this world.

*Insert irony meter joke here*

If you qualify as one, I will leave up to you to decide.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean does he qualify as a 'tough guy' or 'hard headed & stubborn'. He has not appeared the latter thus far.

It does if you take into consideration the thickness of the vessel.

Havent heard this one before.

Yes they do.

No they don't. Chewing the cud is regurgitating food from the first stomach which is filled with cellulose digesting bacteria back into the mouth for chewing. Rabbits excrete food filled with said bacteria doing their work then eat their own droppings to get at the now-digestible cells.

What other glass alibi's do you have to try to use as a excuse for not trusting and putting your faith, hope and love in the Living God who created the Universe and who created you?

The word 'other' in that sentence is inappropriate, as it would only apply if the argument in question was in fact a 'glass alibi'. Basic grammar, JohnR7.

 

[GREG]

please stop attacking one another please......

 

[foolsparade]

I agree with someone earlier that stated John's replies are more for the apologetics forum than SCIENCE.

Frumious Bandersnatch, I put in the Hovind comment to add the air of comedy to this thread.

 

[Firscherscherling]

I guess it is a little bit to deep for you to understand. If you can not grasp the sunday school material, how do you expect us to promote you?

I'll just ignore that. I would hate for the moderator to close this tread.

Please explain the lesson of the Noah story for me. Explain the physical and factual aspects, and why God would save only some things and have a man and a boat save the others.

Thanks.