Noah's Ark

[Bryanfromiowa]

definitely a topic that will make your head ache on one hand you can make a good argument that it couldn't have happened exactly as young earth strict bible choloars say it did , on the other hand though i read or heard somewhere that there are 200 and some geographically separate cultures with a flood myth in many one family or group survives

 

[mmcneely]

In 17 years of dedicated study then I am sure you know how a concordance works, try searching "Noah."

Because I have better things to do besides study a book I no longer care about. Why don't you get off your lazy butt (figuratively speaking) and throw some references here.

Maybe you should read into the next chapter alittle. Because as it is written, what was recorded in 6:19 was somewhat a rough draft of what was to actually happen as layed out in Chapter 7... So yes God did select what went into the ark.

Wow, I didn't know that perfect beings required rough drafts. Hum... Just looked at Gen 7 and I see nothing where God rewrites his flood plan. Wait, just the fact that now some animals are coming in groups of 14... thereby taking up more room on an already cramped ark.

What I am saying this their "guesses" are not to supersede the written word of God. that their commentary should be viewed as commentary and taken with a grain of salt next to what is written. How does that relate? Well as I pointed out their was not a date given for the flood. Because of this it is only a guess to name a year. Their best guess along with anyone else's are just that, a guess no matter who makes it..

Ok, that still doesn't explain that there is no gap in between ANY civiliaztion from the beginning of recorded history.

Outside of what is recorded in scripture we know nothing of the flood.

Perhaps because it didn't happen...

Guilty, but apparently so are the folks at Merriam Webster according to your assessment. I appear to be in good company.

They aren't the one that is cherry picking definitions. I could take any word you've said and apply an alternate definition to it. Besides, as I was the original poster for that topic, by default, the picking of the definition would go to me. Of course Christians have been interpreting the Bible their own way for thousands of years so I don't know why I expected anything different here. But that's another topic.

What you do not seem to be able to comprehend is the the "theory" that the earth was flat was also a "factual theory." Or so say the reference material I quoted. Again that would mean that a "fact" is not a kin to an absolute truth.

Man used to believe that the earth was flat. This was do to suggestive nature of various Bible verses. They believed it to be fact at the time, but because of advancements in science we know now that theory to be false. BUT IT IS STILL A THEORY. Just as the earth being round is a theory, the only difference is that the earth being round is a proven theory and therefore a fact. See, theory and fact AT THE SAME TIME.

Apparently the folks at Merriam Webster also recognized the relationship "Fact" has with "theory" and so they defined and limited how these words compliment one another. The definitions I left are their words, and not mine...

But you left PARTIAL definitions. I'm not going to argue this point with you any more. I have better things to do.

 

[mmcneely]

Sadly many modern bible teachers transpose modern understandings of phrases such as
"the whole earth" and "under heaven" to the bible and get the wrong conclusion.

So, modern translations are inaccurate?

For example, thousands of years later, in Solomon's time, The Queen of Sheba was said
to have come "from the uttermost parts of the earth" (Matt. 12:42).

Well, since it's not stated, perhaps she did come from the uttermost parts of the earth. Since she was searching for answers to hard questions maybe she was on a road trip to all the wise men in the world? Bible doesn't say, so it could be true.

I read your verses on the local flood theory, and I could see where it could make sense. The only question I now have is this: How could God killed everything that 'breathed the breath of life' if the flood were local? Gen 7:21-22

 

[razeontherock]

Gen 6:19 "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures." What the heck does that mean then?

For one that will caustically tell a person that has studied the Bible for decades (me) "maybe you should read the Bible," you are pretty thoughtless with your assertions and irresponsible with your questions:

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female. (Genesis 6:20) Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive."

See the words in brackets []? That means there is NO word in Hebrew to correspond to that english word, and it was merely added to try to make it a little more readable. Therefore for you to say it means "every species" is utterly ridiculous. It could mean as little as 2 birds, it could mean 2 birds of every type Noah knew about, but most likely it means exactly what it says, that God would cause "two of every ___" to come to Noah, and those are the ones he should keep alive.

There are words for what you are doing here, which is imposing your own ideas onto the text. There are also words for taking the text at face value, which would be the place for you to start, if you wish to come to any understanding of what is being said. Oh and don't rely on a single version and go concocting grand conclusions from it, like you have done here.

What differences? Can you prove any of this or is it all conjecture?

Conjecture isn't the word i would use for a first-hand account, no.

I'm just going by what the Bible says. God told Noah that he would make the ark, and that he would gather the animals, and that he would gather the food. Gen 6:15-21. All in the span of 100 years.

And where exactly did you get this 100 year time span from?

 

[razeontherock]

Because I have better things to do besides study a book I no longer care about. Why don't you get off your lazy butt (figuratively speaking) and throw some references here.

Wow, I didn't know that perfect beings required rough drafts. Hum... Just looked at Gen 7

You just threw your "17 years of Bible study" into disrepute and contempt. It appears that in that time you learned nothing, while these things under discussion are quite simple, and since they're near the beginning one might even expect that you covered them, sometime, in 17 years but, nooo

 

[drich0150]

Because I have better things to do besides study a book I no longer care about. Why don't you get off your lazy butt (figuratively speaking) and throw some references here.

Just proving a point. In that you are not who you have represented yourself to be. A simple bible school student understands how the animals came to be on the ark. Something you after you exhaustive studies seem to have "forgotten" in your opening volley.
Here is the "reference material" you have requested:
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

Wow, I didn't know that perfect beings required rough drafts. Hum...

Apparently you do not understand the nature of the passage you quoted, or the God who inspired it, Hebrew tradition that it is recorded in, Nor what the preceding chapter had to say.

Till just now:

Just looked at Gen 7 and I see nothing where God rewrites his flood plan. Wait, just the fact that now some animals are coming in groups of 14... thereby taking up more room on an already cramped ark.

Which supports my original assertion. In that God decided who or what was to be on the Ark. To that end it was up to God to make room for, and care for all that He placed on the Ark.

OK, that still doesn't explain that there is no gap in between ANY civilization from the beginning of recorded history.

How long ago was that by your best estimation?

..And now, answer when was the flood???

Now tell me how your numbers are not guesses.

Perhaps because it didn't happen...

Is that really the best you can do?

They aren't the one that is cherry picking definitions. I could take any word you've said and apply an alternate definition to it.

Only if you did not take into consideration the context in which Fact and theory are being used..

Besides, as I was the original poster for that topic, by default, the picking of the definition would go to me.

are you a freshman in high school? The definitions we have to use are dictated by the usage of the words in the conversation we are having. The definitions I "selected" are the ones that apply to the usage of the words in your original conversation. As per the definitions and examples set forth by the reference material.

You don't get to "cherry pick" just because you said so..

Of course Christians have been interpreting the Bible their own way for thousands of years so I don't know why I expected anything different here. But that's another topic.

Fallacy of a sweeping generalization.

Man used to believe that the earth was flat. This was do to suggestive nature of various Bible verses.

Actually no, this was due to the fact that the earth does not have a noticeable curve. Those who do not even know God or the bible thought the earth to be flat.

They believed it to be fact at the time, but because of advancements in science we know now that theory to be false. BUT IT IS STILL A THEORY.

One based on Facts. Incorrect facts but facts just the same.

Just as the earth being round is a theory, the only difference is that the earth being round is a proven theory and therefore a fact. See, theory and fact AT THE SAME TIME.

Actually no, this is a scientific truth. The facts that support this truth can be verified and are not dependent on speculation or specialized interpretation of available data.

But you left PARTIAL definitions. I'm not going to argue this point with you any more. I have better things to do.

I left the definitions that directly applied to the conversation as per the examples written in conjunction with the definition.

As far as your "better things to do" perhaps you could ask the other questions you had mentioned in the beginning.

 

[StormHawk]

So, modern translations are inaccurate?

I can only speak for the KJV and no, if you cross-reference to the other scriptures instead of just bringing in the modern understanding of "the whole earth" you will see there is a clear consistent message.

I feel sorry for the global flood people, I used to be one, they are trying to defend a straw man, thinking they are doing God a service, in fact they are not!

.. The only question I now have is this: How could God killed everything that 'breathed the breath of life' if the flood were local? Gen 7:21-22

As far as all the prople God was talking to (through Noah) were concerned, all flesh, their "world" was destroyed.

Geology and the records of other civilisations back up the biblical acount of the flood, as they do other old trestament stories.

But, you don't have to dig around in the earth to find God!
God says he dwells in people that have received His Spirit (as detailed in Acts 2) and is seen in those people if they live that new life (sadly many don't, it's all superficial). The Ark today is a church like the one he set up ... 1 Corinthians 14 details what should happen in meetings.
I hope you get on board that fellow-ship!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

What I want to know is how Noah coped with termites on the Ark. Wouldn't they have eaten holes into it? Also, who carried the head lice? I presume God wanted to save them too.

Anyone, in this day and age, who reads the flood story as literal fact, is just being silly. There is nothing in science that supports a literal, world wide flood as described in Genesis; the fossil record doesn't show animals fleeing in panic to higher ground, archaeology and geology do not support the flood, and our own evolutionary record shows modern humans did not descend from a handful of flood survivors.

Also, it has to be asked, that if the flood actually did happen, why anyone would want to love a deity who's tantrum led him to wipe out life on a planet he created; like a child destroying a toy that wouldn't work the way he wanted it to. The Bible was self-evidently written by humans and Yahweh, as described in the Bible, is a very human creation, given over to the same passions that plague us - fits of rage, love, jealousy, hatred, prejudice, etc. If there is a God out there then I would speculate that he is not given over to his passions so easily as the Bible suggests he is.

The flood story is myth; pure and simple. I believe it no more than I believe the events of Homer's Illiad.

 

[StormHawk]

What I want to know is how Noah coped with termites on the Ark. Wouldn't they have eaten holes into it? Also, who carried the head lice? I presume God wanted to save them too.

First you need to understand that only animals of their "World" were taken on board (see my posts above for details). Then you need to appreciate that a feature of the Mesopotamian region concerned is that there are few trees - so they built using sun-dried mud, not even oven-baked, this is why little remains of Babylon today, unlike certain other ancient cities & structures. It may well be that termites were not involved, they carried on as before in Africa & other places.
Animals can carry head lice

 

[mmcneely]

See the words in brackets []? That means there is NO word in Hebrew to correspond to that english word, and it was merely added to try to make it a little more readable. Therefore for you to say it means "every species" is utterly ridiculous. It could mean as little as 2 birds, it could mean 2 birds of every type Noah knew about, but most likely it means exactly what it says, that God would cause "two of every ___" to come to Noah, and those are the ones he should keep alive.

Really, as little as two birds? I am no scientist, but from the articles that I have read on genetics, there would definitely be too little genetic diversity for those two birds to be the genetic ancestors of all the birds we have today. The same would go for Noah and his family. Not to mention all the inbreeding that would be going on with the humans and animals... it would definitely leave a lot of bad mutations. Unless God made all this go away with his voodoo magic.

There are words for what you are doing here, which is imposing your own ideas onto the text. There are also words for taking the text at face value, which would be the place for you to start, if you wish to come to any understanding of what is being said. Oh and don't rely on a single version and go concocting grand conclusions from it, like you have done here.

I am taking it at face value. I'm not reading into it at all. And this multiple versions of the Bible junk has always confused me. If God says that he would preserve his word, what is the need for multiple versions? And why are there glaring contradictions between the different versions? But that is a completely different topic

Conjecture isn't the word i would use for a first-hand account, no.

Can you prove that it was a first hand account? Do you have an original manuscript with God's signature on it or something?

And where exactly did you get this 100 year time span from?

That's a funny one... oh your serious? Man, for such a Bible scholar you sure don't know much. Gen 5:32, Gen 7:6. Bible says that Noah had a MAXIMUM of 100 years.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

First you need to understand that only animals of their "World" were taken on board (see my posts above for details). Then you need to appreciate that a feature of the Mesopotamian region concerned is that there are few trees - so they built using sun-dried mud, not even oven-baked, this is why little remains of Babylon today, unlike certain other ancient cities & structures. It may well be that termites were not involved, they carried on as before in Africa & other places.
Animals can carry head lice

Firstly, the Bible describes the Flood as covering the whole earth. It wasn't a local flood. Secondly, there is still no archaeological or geological evidence for such a flood. It's a myth. There are Christians in this very thread who say the same.

The flood story has been debated ad nauseum on a few other forums I go to and, in every case, the Christian argument for a literal Flood has been defeated easily. One of the best arguments against it was the sheer speed at which the rain must have fallen to fill the earth in the time described; one person on the thread I was reading worked it out as 15ft of rain an hour or something like that - which would easily have sunk the ark. Another argument against it is the huge number of species on the planet and how they all fit on the ark without killing each other. I've heard the "kinds" argument, and that fails too. If all animals were wiped out on earth, except a few "kinds" that got saved on the ark, then you are basically acknowledging some kind of evolution in which these flood survivor "kinds" evolved into the millions of species we know today. If you can believe in this "micro-evolution" (as Christians call it), then you cannot argue against evolution in its entirety without being a hypocrite.

You can say "God did it" if it helps you sleep at night, but personally, I'd rather stick to what the scientists tell me. People have been looking for evidence for the Flood for around 200 years now and have come up with nothing. If a global flood did happen in the last 10,000 years, there would be evidence in the fossil record and evidence in archaeology, that would be found abundantly in every continent. Nothing like this has ever been found. In fact, as the OP described, civilization was doing its thing quite nicely during the time this Flood was supposed to have happened. I actually feel sorry for Christians who have to go to extraordinary leaps of the imagination in order to defend the Flood myth.

 

[mmcneely]

You just threw your "17 years of Bible study" into disrepute and contempt. It appears that in that time you learned nothing, while these things under discussion are quite simple, and since they're near the beginning one might even expect that you covered them, sometime, in 17 years but, nooo

It is intellectually lazy to come into a thread and to say someone is wrong, and not provide any sort of proof. I ask for Bible references at a minimum. And yes, I know very well that Paul talks about Moses and Noah and a whole bunch of other people. You need to stop the same "flaming" that you reported me for.

 

[mmcneely]

Apparently you do not understand the nature of the passage you quoted, or the God who inspired it, Hebrew tradition that it is recorded in, Nor what the preceding chapter had to say.

Maybe, but I do understand English. And if God knew that this book would wind up in the hand of non Hebrews, then why didn't he make things more clear for us gentiles?

Which supports my original assertion. In that God decided who or what was to be on the Ark. To that end it was up to God to make room for, and care for all that He placed on the Ark.

Which brings up another question. Why did God murder with world's population? I know the Bible says that everyone was wicked and violent, but I'm 100% sure that not everyone was. My son is 8 months old, and while he may be a handful, he is by no means wicked. Why would an all loving God murder countless babies?

How long ago was that by your best estimation?

On a casual search, at minimum 30,000 BCE

..And now, answer when was the flood???
Now tell me how your numbers are not guesses.

Here's a wiki about it. You can check the sources when your skepticism creeps up. Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

doh:are you a freshman in high school? The definitions we have to use are dictated by the usage of the words in the conversation we are having. The definitions I "selected" are the ones that apply to the usage of the words in your original conversation. As per the definitions and examples set forth by the reference material.

Actually no. I currently hold a Bachelors degree in Bible (such a waste of time) and am pursuing a degree in Electronics. Please, for someone who "lol, bearly made it thru high school" I wouldn't bring education into the question.

Look guy, I wan't cherry picking. I wrote the post so I know best what the definition of the word I was using. You don't get to interpret it in your own way. To fully understand any sort of writing you have to go to the author. If this is the kind of approach you take to posts on the internet, it's obvious what approach you take to the Bible.

Fallacy of a sweeping generalization.

Generalization yes, fallacy no.

Actually no, this was due to the fact that the earth does not have a noticeable curve. Those who do not even know God or the bible thought the earth to be flat.

That's because earth is big! The earth actually has like five places on it where you can see the curve. The Bible says things like "four corners of the earth" and junk like that. That's where they got the idea for a flat earth. Not to mention that was the popular idea at the time.

 

[drich0150]

Maybe, but I do understand English. And if God knew that this book would wind up in the hand of non Hebrews, then why didn't he make things more clear for us gentiles?

Clarity is available for those who ask, seek and knock for the wisdom offered through the Holy Spirit of God.

How else do you think any of us know, anything beyond what is written in the English?

It is up to us to look past our own self righteousness and level of understanding to find God. If a complete understanding of God could be found the first time/place you looked, would what you have found indeed be the infinite God described in the bible?

 

[Faulty]

If you want factual answers, search for 'Answers in Genesis' and Ken Ham, and even subscribe to their podcasts and see if your doubts can survive.

Also, look up Dr Richard Oliver, PhD in Evolutionary Biology, at Confound the Wise Ministries. See if you can handle them.

 

[golgotha61]

Grumpy Old Man;58690505]Firstly, the Bible describes the Flood as covering the whole earth. It wasn't a local flood. Secondly, there is still no archaeological or geological evidence for such a flood. It's a myth. There are Christians in this very thread who say the same.

The flood was world wide and there is evidence in the fossils embedded in the sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. The fossil record is result of the world wide flood.

The flood story has been debated ad nauseum on a few other forums I go to and, in every case, the Christian argument for a literal Flood has been defeated easily. One of the best arguments against it was the sheer speed at which the rain must have fallen to fill the earth in the time described; one person on the thread I was reading worked it out as 15ft of rain an hour or something like that - which would easily have sunk the ark.

One needs to read the whole verse: Genesis 7:11b on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. There was also a storehouse of water under the earth's crust as given in this verse, so it was not only the rain that caused the flood. It was the water storehouse that was released by earthquakes combined with the deluge that caused the flood.

Another argument against it is the huge number of species on the planet and how they all fit on the ark without killing each other. I've heard the "kinds" argument, and that fails too. If all animals were wiped out on earth, except a few "kinds" that got saved on the ark, then you are basically acknowledging some kind of evolution in which these flood survivor "kinds" evolved into the millions of species we know today. If you can believe in this "micro-evolution" (as Christians call it), then you cannot argue against evolution in its entirety without being a hypocrite.

Evolution is a word that can have more than one connotation. For instance if I say my home has evolved into a thing of beauty, it simply means change since I have painted some rooms, replanted the lawn, and so on. The different "kinds" of animals on the ark branching off into species of the same "kind" is an example of natural selection and mutation acting on a population. There is no problem with this for a Christian. However the general theory of evolution in which molecules change into man, is not factual nor is it provable.

 

[razeontherock]

Firstly, the Bible describes the Flood as covering the whole earth. It wasn't a local flood.

Debatable at best, but mostly false.

One of the best arguments against it was the sheer speed at which the rain must have fallen

Consider yourself laughed out of the room, due to having no idea what you're talking about! Water also came UP from beneath, and there is actually good physical evidence of this. (Just not on a global scale)

Another argument against it is the huge number of species on the planet and how they all fit on the ark

More argument from ignorance. Nowhere does God say (or even hint at) "2 of each species."

If you can believe in this "micro-evolution" (as Christians call it), then you cannot argue against evolution in its entirety without being a hypocrite.

Nonsense. A horse can evolve into a zebra. That doesn't mean my ancestor is a jellyfish.

 

[razeontherock]

It is intellectually lazy to come into a thread and to say someone is wrong, and not provide any sort of proof. I ask for Bible references at a minimum. And yes, I know very well that Paul talks about Moses and Noah and a whole bunch of other people. You need to stop the same "flaming" that you reported me for.

There are not 2 creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis, one for "Creation" and the other for how things were "made?" Why do I need to "provide" proof? The Lord has provided, and it is there for all to behold. How have you managed to miss it? He specifically says "created and made." You have never pondered the difference?

 

[razeontherock]

Which brings up another question. Why did God murder with world's population? I know the Bible says that everyone was wicked and violent, but I'm 100% sure that not everyone was. My son is 8 months old, and while he may be a handful, he is by no means wicked. Why would an all loving God murder countless babies?

First of all your quote says you're responding to me, but I didn't post those things. Anyway, Noah was picked because he was HUMAN. The rest of our species was NOT, neither were the animals they way he had created them anymore. That's what the story says, and for you to claim you studied Scripture for 17 years and got a degree in it just isn't born out by your comments here.

The Bible says things like "four corners of the earth" and junk like that. That's where they got the idea for a flat earth. Not to mention that was the popular idea at the time.

Which means, they did NOT "get the idea for a flat earth" from that poetic phrase. It was, as you say, a popular idea at that time. Have you ever sailed over a continental shelf? It really can look like you're coming to the end of the of the world and will fall off, and / or like sea monsters are coming up at you, more than big enough to pull a whole ship down. Pretty freaky!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Consider yourself laughed out of the room, due to having no idea what you're talking about! Water also came UP from beneath, and there is actually good physical evidence of this. (Just not on a global scale)

I'm not even going to comment on this idiocy.