The truth about Noah's ark

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, I entertained myself last night watching the netflix show, 'The Truth About Noah's Ark'. The gist of the show is that it's all a myth of some kind. They have scientists showing that a sea going vessel the size of the ark, as given in the Scriptures, could not have stayed afloat. Either because of the rough seas that a storm of that magnitude would surely create, or that there is no way, even today, for man to make a purely wooden craft that is water tight, to the 'fact' that there wouldn't have been a tree large enough for the hull rail.

I was thinking to myself as I watched these masterful scientists explain their position, Jesus and Peter walked on water! If God can hold a man on the top of water so that he can walk right along it as any of us would simply walk down a sidewalk, how hard can it be for Him to keep a vessel afloat. I mean, let's face it, the ark was built by Noah but it's ultimate purpose was to do the work of God. Wouldn't God have likely provided supernatural assistance if, in fact, the vessel wasn't built to withstand the water pressing against its hull? Secondly, no one mentioned that the Scriptures also say that God told Noah to coat the inside and outside of the craft with pitch.

Now, I've seen the commercial of the guy that invented the spray in a can that is pretty much just liquid pitch that he sprays on a screen door and then sets it in the bottom of a boat and the boat is water tight. How come he can do that but God can't?

Sadly, scientists believe that science is all there is. They will not even consider that if God wants a man or a vessel to be buoyant in water He can do that! I mean honestly, I rather imagine that if Noah had drilled a thousand holes in the hull but God wanted the vessel to float it would! I know I sound like a broken record, but why are even 'christians' willing to accept that if science says that something can't be done, that it can't be done? According to the Scriptures, God held tons and tons of water back so that it formed a wall on both the right hand and the left of the Israelites passing through the sea. How hard can it be, then, for God to hold a vessel steady in a raging sea?

The really sad part about this show is that they do show a 'christian' perspective where they are able to give answers to the scientific complaints. One man who has pretty much made it his life's work to find the ark says that he found some huge stones that may well have been tied to the bottom of the vessel to make it more steady in the waves. That certainly wasn't a part of God's revealing to us some of the making of the ark. Me, I'd have looked the scientist in the eye and asked him, "Is it your position then that God cannot cause things to happen or to act outside of what we know as normative behavior?" Of course the ultimate sadness was that they had 'christians' agreeing that it was a myth also. One guy all gussied up in his priestly garb actually said that everything from Genesis to Noah was a mythical in nature. Is it any wonder that God's truth is mocked?

Well, if any of you get a chance to watch it, let me know what you think. By the way, you don't even want to get me started on the 'Truth About the Dead Sea Scrolls'. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Myth is a form of literature. The priest and I probably agree on that point. Putting that aside, however, since the text doesn't say it was a miracle that the Ark floated, my guess is that the makers of the documentary assumed it wasn't. Maybe they were wrong. But it _looks_ that way from the passage.

 

[miamited]

Hi willtor,

What if you're wrong? What if 'myth' actually makes a statement about what is being written about? I'm honestly amused that you believe that 'myth is a form of literature' answers the questions brought up in my post. Thank you for the early morning humor. I understand that you are a very, very wise man and I am humbled by your great knowledge and the many, many 'proofs' of all that you believe, but honestly to a simple man such as myself, when I read many of your posts, I'm left asking myself. Huh? I suppose that's the usual response when the unknowing speak with the knowing.

Let me see if I understand you correctly one more time. 'Since the text doesn't say it was a miracle...'. So, since the text doesn't say that the creation event was a miracle, the unbelieving aren't likely to understand that it was? Since, the text doesn't say that the standing of the sun for nearly an entire day over Israel was a miracle, then those same people aren't likely to understand that it was?

This is, of course, pretty much my point. Instead of understanding these things to be miraculous works of an all powerful and all wise and loving Creator, they think that by not being able to 'prove' the events happened, that they didn't. I imagine that there was a time in my life that I would have believed them and I am saddened by all those like me who still may.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ChetSinger]

Hi all,

Well, I entertained myself last night watching the netflix show, 'The Truth About Noah's Ark'. The gist of the show is that it's all a myth of some kind. They have scientists showing that a sea going vessel the size of the ark, as given in the Scriptures, could not have stayed afloat. Either because of the rough seas that a storm of that magnitude would surely create, or that there is no way, even today, for man to make a purely wooden craft that is water tight, to the 'fact' that there wouldn't have been a tree large enough for the hull rail.

Hello! You might be interested in this, if you're not already aware of it:

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

Some years ago a group of Korean shipbuilding engineers studied the design of the ark. They determined that it performed quite well in the water, and could survive waves higher than 30 meters (that 98 feet). Those guys actually designed ships for a living, so they should know what they're talking about.

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

What if you're wrong? What if 'myth' actually makes a statement about what is being written about? I'm honestly amused that you believe that 'myth is a form of literature' answers the questions brought up in my post. Thank you for the early morning humor. I understand that you are a very, very wise man and I am humbled by your great knowledge and the many, many 'proofs' of all that you believe, but honestly to a simple man such as myself, when I read many of your posts, I'm left asking myself. Huh? I suppose that's the usual response when the unknowing speak with the knowing.

I'm afraid I'm not especially wise, so no need to stand on ceremony with me.

If, indeed, the form of literature is mythology, then the author expects us to read it differently than if he had written a factual account. Although you and I presumably disagree on the form of literature, we probably agree that we do the author a disservice by reading it as the wrong form of literature.

Let me see if I understand you correctly one more time. 'Since the text doesn't say it was a miracle...'. So, since the text doesn't say that the creation event was a miracle, the unbelieving aren't likely to understand that it was? Since, the text doesn't say that the standing of the sun for nearly an entire day over Israel was a miracle, then those same people aren't likely to understand that it was?

This is, of course, pretty much my point. Instead of understanding these things to be miraculous works of an all powerful and all wise and loving Creator, they think that by not being able to 'prove' the events happened, that they didn't. I imagine that there was a time in my life that I would have believed them and I am saddened by all those like me who still may.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I actually don't disagree with any of this. As I say, if the author intended for us to think that the Ark was able to float by miraculous means, then that is how we should read it. The issue is that, up until now, I've never heard anybody say that this is what the author intended. When I was a YEC, I thought it floated because that's what boats did, naturally. The supernatural element of the story was the flood, itself, not the Ark. You may have thought all along that the Ark was kept afloat, not by the wood and the pitch, but by miracle (in the same way that the axe floated for Elisha), but that this was intended by the author was not considered by me or any of my YEC teachers.

 

[miamited]

I'm afraid I'm not especially wise, so no need to stand on ceremony with me.

If, indeed, the form of literature is mythology, then the author expects us to read it differently than if he had written a factual account. Although you and I presumably disagree on the form of literature, we probably agree that we do the author a disservice by reading it as the wrong form of literature.

Hi willtor,

Yes, but the question still stands. What if you're wrong? What if it isn't written as myth? What is the truth? What if God is telling us the truth of reality? After all, the Scriptures were authored by God and personally, I don't find anywhere where I might understand any of the old covenant writing as some attempt by Him to pass on some myth through which, I suppose, it would be your conjecture, that He is testing us to see if we'll fall for it. What if it isn't a myth? What if your idea of the Scriptures being written by men with their limited understanding of the creation and therefore subject to their understandings that have been nurtured by other myths and handed down stories is wrong?

I actually don't disagree with any of this. As I say, if the author intended for us to think that the Ark was able to float by miraculous means, then that is how we should read it. The issue is that, up until now, I've never heard anybody say that this is what the author intended. When I was a YEC, I thought it floated because that's what boats did, naturally. The supernatural element of the story was the flood, itself, not the Ark. You may have thought all along that the Ark was kept afloat, not by the wood and the pitch, but by miracle (in the same way that the axe floated for Elisha), but that this was intended by the author was not considered by me or any of my YEC teachers.

But again, what if you're wrong? What if despite the human made frailties of the ark were allowed, but God made sure that the ark didn't sink even if Noah had drilled holes in the hull? The Scriptures don't say that the water standing tall on the right and left hand of the Israelites was a miracle. The Scriptures don't say that the sun standing still in the sky was a miracle. The Scriptures don't say that the turning back of a shadow cast by the sun was a miracle. Why is it that you think that for something to be understood as a miracle the text must say, 'This is a miracle that I am doing."

I'm just curious why you believe the things that you seem to believe. Since you turned away from young earth creationism, I can only imagine that your teachers probably weren't particularly good with their subject. However, I'm more inclined to believe that they may well have been, but you were actually turned away from the truth of God to the 'truth' of men because you, unlike myself, are unable to discern just exactly what science can and can't 'prove'. Paul wrote to Timothy about this very phenomenon. He cautioned Timothy that a time would come when men would turn away from sound doctrine and instead surround themselves by others who would teach them what their itching ears wanted to hear. What if you're wrong?

Just something to consider. The Scriptures speak at length to the subject of false teachers. Finally, in the Revelation we hear about this number '666' and are told that it is the number of man. What if what God is telling us about this number is another caution to believe God and not man?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hello! You might be interested in this, if you're not already aware of it:

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

Some years ago a group of Korean shipbuilding engineers studied the design of the ark. They determined that it performed quite well in the water, and could survive waves higher than 30 meters (that 98 feet). Those guys actually designed ships for a living, so they should know what they're talking about.

Hi chet,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately the first thing that detractors cry about such studies done by those supporting creationism is often, well, they aren't 'real' scientists. I've personally never doubted the ability of the ark to do just exactly what God's word says it did, but...

Many, many people, both 'christians' and non-christians believe that scientific studies of men trump the truth of God and the closer we come to the last days, the more prevalent such teachings become. All of this, of course, is written of in the Scriptures. As I posted to willtor the admonition that Paul gave to Timothy about the days coming when men would not put up with sound doctrine. Paul seems to be obviously speaking of days yet to come after his days on the earth.

I understand that caution and my only hope is to be one crying out in the dry and dusty wilderness: God's word is true! I find it distressing that some of the most ardent supporters of the 'God's word is myth' come not from those who have no understanding, but from those who claim to have it.

There are some on these boards who have as their tag line some quote from Augustine that we should not defy science because it impugns the work and word of God. But when I read the Scriptures, Jesus tells us that we are going to think differently than the world. Jesus tells us that we are going to believe differently than the world. Jesus tells us that we will be hated by those with no understanding. It brings the question to my mind that Augustine may not have had a clue what he was talking about. Paul warns the Galations not to be deceived by arguments based on the natural processes of the creation. How anyone can read all of the warnings to us that we are going to think and believe differently than the world and then support some supposedly wise man's words that such a thing makes a mockery of God is quite beyond my limited ability to grasp.

I honestly can't help but understand that the day of God's judgment is going to be determined by one simple question: Who believed God? When Jesus writes someone's name in the Lamb's book of life will it be because they have shown him that they believed God? I mean, let us reason together. Is God going to find faithful those who taught things opposed to His truth? And why do we not believe? Well, simply because man's science says that some act or event is impossible. Is it at all possible that that's exactly what the
'666' reference in the Revelation is all about. Does this individual believe God or man?

Just my thoughts.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

Yes, but the question still stands. What if you're wrong? What if it isn't written as myth? What is the truth? What if God is telling us the truth of reality? After all, the Scriptures were authored by God and personally, I don't find anywhere where I might understand any of the old covenant writing as some attempt by Him to pass on some myth through which, I suppose, it would be your conjecture, that He is testing us to see if we'll fall for it. What if it isn't a myth? What if your idea of the Scriptures being written by men with their limited understanding of the creation and therefore subject to their understandings that have been nurtured by other myths and handed down stories is wrong?

If I'm right, and it is a myth, then there's no test. There's only misunderstanding because of cultural differences. Think of it this way: you have the modern historian who is a story teller concerned with relating the fact of the matter, and the ancient bard who is a story teller concerned with teaching lessons.

Keegan doesn't expect people to come back to him and ask what is the meaning of the Maginot Line. He does expect people to come back and ask him, "how could guns like the Schwerer Gustav really exist without destroying themselves on every shot?"

Homer didn't expect people to come back to him and ask how such large creatures could have existed since muscle and bone structure don't permit. He probably did expect people to come back and ask, "what is the lesson of Orpheus and Eurydice?"

If we ask the wrong questions of a text, it is not because the author is testing us. It is because we have made an error.

To that, it is worth observing that if I am right about the purpose of Genesis, it makes the text a lot more useful to the ancient Hebrews because it then contrasts the true theology with the false theologies of the neighbors without introducing the possibility of confusion due to changes in sequences or durations of events that are not obviously related to theology.

But again, what if you're wrong? What if despite the human made frailties of the ark were allowed, but God made sure that the ark didn't sink even if Noah had drilled holes in the hull? The Scriptures don't say that the water standing tall on the right and left hand of the Israelites was a miracle. The Scriptures don't say that the sun standing still in the sky was a miracle. The Scriptures don't say that the turning back of a shadow cast by the sun was a miracle. Why is it that you think that for something to be understood as a miracle the text must say, 'This is a miracle that I am doing."

True. Let me nuance my position then: It isn't necessary for it to say that a particular event was miraculous. However, if the object or event in question appears to be mundane and is traditionally interpreted as mundane, but experiment shows that it could not have happened through mundane means, then it is correct to say that science has altered the interpretation of Scripture by showing that it could not have been mundane.

The parting of the Red Sea is not something that people have traditionally interpreted as natural. Moses raises his hand, which we say is natural, and the sea parts, which we say is supernatural. The Ark, traditionally, has been like the raising of Moses' hand. Now it is like the parting of the sea. It is no longer a natural thing.

Thus, it is hard to fault the people in the documentary (again, with the caveat that they are not actually doing science) because they are testing the common interpretation of the passage. To put it another way, everybody thought it was natural until scientists debunked it. Then people who still thought it happened changed their interpretations of the passage. The change in interpretation invalidates the test with respect to the new interpretation, but I think the documentary makers would agree on that point (as would real scientists). What they ostensibly debunked, however, was the thing that everybody thought. They debunked a particular interpretation of an element in Genesis.

I'm just curious why you believe the things that you seem to believe. Since you turned away from young earth creationism, I can only imagine that your teachers probably weren't particularly good with their subject. However, I'm more inclined to believe that they may well have been, but you were actually turned away from the truth of God to the 'truth' of men because you, unlike myself, are unable to discern just exactly what science can and can't 'prove'. Paul wrote to Timothy about this very phenomenon. He cautioned Timothy that a time would come when men would turn away from sound doctrine and instead surround themselves by others who would teach them what their itching ears wanted to hear. What if you're wrong?

Just something to consider. The Scriptures speak at length to the subject of false teachers. Finally, in the Revelation we hear about this number '666' and are told that it is the number of man. What if what God is telling us about this number is another caution to believe God and not man?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I think my YEC teachers had turned away from the truth of God in favor of the truth of men. I could be wrong, as you say. But the truth is, if I weren't inherently open to that possibility, I would still be a YEC. I could become a YEC again, or an OEC, or a gap-ist. The arguments would have to address my fundamental problems with those views. Frankly, if there isn't a natural thing in Genesis, but everything is entirely supernatural, I could accept that, if the case can be made that's what the author intended.

That said, I will turn the question around. Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and that Genesis is both true and non-factual, commonly misunderstood but not meant to deceive?

 

[ChetSinger]

Hi chet,

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately the first thing that detractors cry about such studies done by those supporting creationism is often, well, they aren't 'real' scientists. I've personally never doubted the ability of the ark to do just exactly what God's word says it did, but...

Hi right back at you Ted!

I love reading about people who do things like these shipbuilding engineers did. Because while I already have faith in God, there are others whose faith is helped by seeing how Christian experts in various fields can show how the events in the Bible really do fit into history.

I remember a time, years ago, when my faith was under attack from hearing so-called experts argue for abiogenesis, or the spontaneous generation of life. So I looked into it, reading papers by Christian scientists who explained just how impossible life-from-nothing was. And my faith was strengthened.

 

[miamited]

If I'm right, and it is a myth, then there's no test. There's only misunderstanding because of cultural differences. Think of it this way: you have the modern historian who is a story teller concerned with relating the fact of the matter, and the ancient bard who is a story teller concerned with teaching lessons.

Keegan doesn't expect people to come back to him and ask what is the meaning of the Maginot Line. He does expect people to come back and ask him, "how could guns like the Schwerer Gustav really exist without destroying themselves on every shot?"

Homer didn't expect people to come back to him and ask how such large creatures could have existed since muscle and bone structure don't permit. He probably did expect people to come back and ask, "what is the lesson of Orpheus and Eurydice?"

If we ask the wrong questions of a text, it is not because the author is testing us. It is because we have made an error.

To that, it is worth observing that if I am right about the purpose of Genesis, it makes the text a lot more useful to the ancient Hebrews because it then contrasts the true theology with the false theologies of the neighbors without introducing the possibility of confusion due to changes in sequences or durations of events that are not obviously related to theology.

Hi willtor,

If you're right and it is a myth then what do you make of Jesus mentioning it and claiming that only 8 people were saved in the day of the flood?

To that, it is worth observing that if I am right about the purpose of Genesis, it makes the text a lot more useful to the ancient Hebrews because it then contrasts the true theology with the false theologies of the neighbors without introducing the possibility of confusion due to changes in sequences or durations of events that are not obviously related to theology.

All of this, of course, is based on your being right. I don't think that you are. How in the world you have convinced yourself that a mythical story somehow would hold more meaning to Israel than the truth is quite beyond my ability to grasp, but I'm sure that you've worked all that out. You wrote: ...because it then contrasts the true theology with the false theologies of the neighbors without introducing the possibility of confusion due to changes in sequences or durations of events that are not obviously related to theology.

I'd like you to read that over very slowly and give it some deep thought. Does that sentence really make a bit of sense to you?

Keegan doesn't expect people to come back to him and ask what is the meaning of the Maginot Line. He does expect people to come back and ask him, "how could guns like the Schwerer Gustav really exist without destroying themselves on every shot?"

You find that point to somehow have some meaning to the discussion at hand, right? I'm afraid I must remind you that I am a very, very simple man. Logical convolutions escape me quite easily. Although I did have two years of logic in college, your attempts are far, far beyond my abilities to understand.

It isn't necessary for it to say that a particular event was miraculous. However, if the object or event in question appears to be mundane and is traditionally interpreted as mundane, but experiment shows that it could not have happened through mundane means, then it is correct to say that science has altered the interpretation of Scripture by showing that it could not have been mundane.

So then, ah, if the scientists in question here show that this mundane thing (the ark) could not have floated by mundane means, then it's not mundane. Does that mean it's a miracle? What exactly are you saying when you say, ...then it is correct to say that science had altered the interpretation of Scripture by showing that it could not have been mundane.

Ahhh finally,

That said, I will turn the question around. Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and that Genesis is both true and non-factual, commonly misunderstood but not meant to deceive?

I am always open to investigate what I believe and I have studied the Scriptures at great length. I have no doubt in my mind that they are commonly misunderstood and I am absolutely assured that they were not given to us to deceive.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi right back at you Ted!

I love reading about people who do things like these shipbuilding engineers did. Because while I already have faith in God, there are others whose faith is helped by seeing how Christian experts in various fields can show how the events in the Bible really do fit into history.

I remember a time, years ago, when my faith was under attack from hearing so-called experts argue for abiogenesis, or the spontaneous generation of life. So I looked into it, reading papers by Christian scientists who explained just how impossible life-from-nothing was. And my faith was strengthened.

Hi chet,

Yes, I absolutely have been in that same place. I find the writings of Grant Jeffries pretty substantial stuff. Having had some psyche classes in college, I'm always wondering what it is that makes people think and believe what they do. Myself included. For myself, when I come upon those tough questions that others often ask, I go to the source. Just like James wrote, when I feel I may be lacking in wisdom on some subject regarding spiritual things, I go to God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

If you're right and it is a myth then what do you make of Jesus mentioning it and claiming that only 8 people were saved in the day of the flood?

That's a perfectly appropriate thing to do whether the narrative is historical-factual or mythological. Even today people go much further than that and reference entirely fictional characters in that way.

All of this, of course, is based on your being right. I don't think that you are. How in the world you have convinced yourself that a mythical story somehow would hold more meaning to Israel than the truth is quite beyond my ability to grasp, but I'm sure that you've worked all that out. You wrote: ...because it then contrasts the true theology with the false theologies of the neighbors without introducing the possibility of confusion due to changes in sequences or durations of events that are not obviously related to theology.

I'd like you to read that over very slowly and give it some deep thought. Does that sentence really make a bit of sense to you?

Yeah. Let me break it up:

There are a bunch of neighboring cultures with origin mythologies that express what they believe to be true about God (or their gods). The Babylonians, for example, believe that all order is made by Marduk, who, by his great power, was able to beat back the chaos.

Moses, however, believes that God is the God of _all_, orderly and chaotic. He wants to communicate that God is Lord over all things, so he writes that God does not beat back the chaos -- He commands the chaos with a Word, and the chaos obeys.

Along those lines, what does anybody care whether the world is billions of years old? They don't even have a word for "billion." If Moses found a way to express it, it is likely that his people (and most subsequent hearers) would conclude that the world was actually uncreated. Mythology is a _much_ more effective way to communicate the truth than a factual account.

You find that point to somehow have some meaning to the discussion at hand, right? I'm afraid I must remind you that I am a very, very simple man. Logical convolutions escape me quite easily. Although I did have two years of logic in college, your attempts are far, far beyond my abilities to understand.

Keegan, an historian, doesn't deal in eternal truths -- at least, not in his writings. Just the facts. It's hard to incorporate big picture things into literal histories. Note that in the gospels, for example, the writers frequently break away from the narrative to express the eternal value of an act or saying. In mythology, that isn't necessary.

So then, ah, if the scientists in question here show that this mundane thing (the ark) could not have floated by mundane means, then it's not mundane. Does that mean it's a miracle? What exactly are you saying when you say, ...then it is correct to say that science had altered the interpretation of Scripture by showing that it could not have been mundane.

Right. This is moving the goalposts. And, as I say, we can do this with anything. But then, why fight science on matters of origins? Science says there was no global flood because all evidence is to the contrary? It's a miracle. It was miraculously made to leave no evidence for, but only evidence against.

But at some point one has to say, "maybe I've misunderstood the text."

Ahhh finally,

I am always open to investigate what I believe and I have studied the Scriptures at great length. I have no doubt in my mind that they are commonly misunderstood and I am absolutely assured that they were not given to us to deceive.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

This is a response to something that is different from what I asked. Again, are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and that Genesis is both true and non-factual, commonly misunderstood but not meant to deceive? The whole kit-and-caboodle?

 

[miamited]

This is a response to something that is different from what I asked. Again, are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and that Genesis is both true and non-factual, commonly misunderstood but not meant to deceive? The whole kit-and-caboodle?

No.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

No.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Okay, this is an important point then. I certainly appreciate your candor and honesty. But you see that the discussion is inherently unbalanced. In particular, without an honest appraisal, how is it that you can profess to evaluate and critique my position? It can't be reason or textual analysis. It can't be faithfulness to God. All of these require honest appraisal of the position in question.

 

[Job8]

Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and that Genesis is both true and non-factual, commonly misunderstood but not meant to deceive?

Genesis cannot be "both true and non-factual". If it is "non-factual" then it is a lie from the beginning. If it is true, there is no reason for any Christian to doubt a single word, because it constitutes the Word of God. Thus Genesis for Christians is factual, historical, sober, chronological reality as God presents it to Man. One has only two choices: believe God or disbelieve Him. There is no middle ground.

Why do we have this issue in the first place? Because unbelieving, rationalistic, naturalistic *critics" and *scholars* decided that they are wiser than God, and "their foolish hearts were darkened". They treated all things supernatural as legends and myths -- basically fairy tales. And theological liberalism became dominant in the mainline denominations.

As to Noah's ark, the very fact that God gave Noah specific instructions as to its construction tells us that the ark met all the requirements of a big ship. What was supernatural is (a) direct instructions from God regarding its construction and (b) direct instructions from God regarding its occupants and their preservation. Noah was not left to his own devices. This is a historical record, with specific numbers of days etc. included. It is reiterated in the New Testament.

 

[miamited]

Okay, this is an important point then. I certainly appreciate your candor and honesty. But you see that the discussion is inherently unbalanced. In particular, without an honest appraisal, how is it that you can profess to evaluate and critique my position? It can't be reason or textual analysis. It can't be faithfulness to God. All of these require honest appraisal of the position in question.

Hi willtor,

I agree that the discussion is inherently unbalanced, but I'm not sure that I come to that position for the same reasons that you do. You find that my answer immediately says that I am not using reason or textual analysis. Really? I'm fairly confident that reason and textual analysis are the very backbone of what I believe. It can't be faithfulness to God. Really? I believe it is not only faithfulness to God, but actually knowing God that leads me to my understanding.

I've read the Scriptures through repeatedly. God created. He created this realm for the express and singular purpose of making a place for a creature that He called man to exist. God saw all the sin and faithlessness of mankind and destroyed everything save 8 people. God started over with Noah, called a man named Abram. Raised his generations into a nation of people to do His bidding. Part of that work that they were created for was to be the acting agent through which He would deliver His truth to His created.

Once God had patiently worked through Israel to complete His account of history, He then provided the way of salvation for mankind through the precious blood of His Son. God is going to bring it all to an end one day and then He will have accomplished the work for which He created this realm. He will draw from all the people who have ever lived a faithful remnant; a perfect harvest of mankind and for those few, for all eternity God will be their God and they will be His people.

Yes, I've reasoned and analyzed the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ChetSinger]

This is a response to something that is different from what I asked. Again, are you open to the possibility that you are wrong and that Genesis is both true and non-factual, commonly misunderstood but not meant to deceive? The whole kit-and-caboodle?

Hello Willtor. I don't want to pile on, but I agree with miamited that the account of the Flood was intended to be historical.

Why? Because afaik the ancients considered the account historical.



Within the NT itself there are two places where many ancient names appear together: the genealogy in Luke and the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11. In each case there are no distinctions made between the earliest figures (Adam, Abel, Seth, etc.) and the latest ones (Mary's husband Joseph and his father, etc.). That is, I see no evidence that some were considered to be mythical and others historical. In fact I see the opposite, in that the last verse of Heb 11 lumps them all together:

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Outside of the NT, in Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus takes pains to link the Flood to actual history. For example, he speaks about people of his era taking pieces of the Ark's bitumen and making amulets from them.


I'm convinced the idea of the Flood as myth is a modern one. The Jews of the NT era considered it part of their history.

 

[miamited]

Hi again willtor,

There's a song 'El Shaddai', and in that song there's a line about Israel not understanding the 'plan'. I believe that particular line to be very, very important. God created this realm in which we live. All the stars and asteroids and planets scattered seemingly endlessly across the universe were made in practically a mere moment. All that is on and in the earth was similarly created, made if you will, by the command of a being who reveals Himself and calls Himself, God. He created it all near instantly and all by His awesome power, wisdom, goodness and love. He made it all. Everything which has been made was made by God. He did it all.

But there has always been a plan. Our existence is not just some willy nilly event of some natural causes. God created man and He created with a plan. As I have studied the Scriptures thoroughly, that plan becomes clear. God created man because He desires others for which He can be in relationship with. I suppose it's lonely being all by oneself for ever and ever and ever and ever. So, God created the angelic realm so that He could be in relationship with them. God similarly created our realm so that He could be in relationship with us. God is love and to be full of love with no one to express it to is a lonely place to be, indeed. We are just a different kind of creature from the angels that God created, but the purpose of creating both realms was the same. God wants to love and be loved. He desires to nurture and bless and do good things for those that He created, but He does ask for our obedience and love in return. Jesus said that the very greatest and first law of God that you, I, and others obey is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength. I mean he mentions every thing that makes a human being a human being and says with that part of you, love God!

But God cannot live with sin. This is why we find that at the day of God's judgment, not only will God cast out the wicked of mankind, but makes it quite clear that He will also cast out the wicked among the angelic realm. A time is coming when God is going to make all things, both in our realm and the angelic realm, clean of sin. He is going to make everything new again.

The Scriptures delineate a perfect plan by which God is going to accomplish His ultimate goal. Just as Peter wrote to us, these days in which we live are the days of God's patience. He is waiting patiently while we go on sinning and rebuking and refusing Him, but He will straighten it all out one day. These are the days of His patience that while He has delivered the Scriptures to us through His people Israel, He is waiting for some to come to faith and love and believe Him. It's a perfect plan and it's a plan by which we individually get to make a choice. Will I love and believe God or will I not?

In the final chapters of the Revelation we read this: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Now, sure, you and I can scratch off cowardly pretty easily we say to ourselves, but what is God speaking of when He says cowardly? Is He merely referring to men and women who will not fight to protect their family? Or is He referring to those who are afraid to stand up for the truth of God? The unbelieving may be something we might want to analyse and reason very carefully also. Is God merely referring to those who didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God? Or is it deeper than that? When God accuses someone of being unbelieving is He just referring to what we believed about Jesus, or is He possibly referring to all those who didn't believe Him? As you say, the whole kit and kaboodle. The vile; what is it that God calls vile. There are number of practices of men that God says are an abomination to Him. Are those who practice such things as this what He means by vile? Or does His understanding of vile cover those and many other practices of mankind? The murderers; yes most of us feel comfortable scratching that one off, but again we must be careful. Jesus said that one who hates his brother has committed murder in his heart. You can study the rest if you choose.

But look, friend, God has written a list of eight types of people who will not inherit eternal life. We all tend to scratch off murder and think to ourselves, well, since I'm not guilty of all of them it doesn't mean me. But again, let's look at how God judges sin. Jesus said that if a man commits even one sin that man is guilty of all. Can you scratch all eight off your list?

Of course you can't. No one can. That's why Jesus died. However, the Scriptures seem quite clear that our faith in Jesus' death for our sin must be coupled with a born again spirit of our own. Trust me friend, even Satan knows that Jesus died on that cross. However, that knowledge alone is obviously not going to save him. We have to learn, through the conviction and instruction of the Holy Spirit which we receive if we have been born again, to turn back from our base instincts and our own understanding and learn to love God.

Now, I know that this is a bit far afield from my own OP, but unfortunately I feel compelled to take every opportunity to express the truth of God.

Friend, the ark existed. The flood happened. The sun stood still in the sky. The shadow retreated back up the steps. The water stood as a sentinel on both the right and left hand of the Israelites as they walked on a dry sea bed that had only the day before been covered by tons and tons and tons of water. The ass talked. The baby was born from a virgin womb that had never had human sperm.

It's all true! And quite frankly, if you weren't more interested in sounding wise and learned to yourself and being able to walk in the world with your head held high that you are a 'christian' but believe all that man says, you'd likely understand that also. But as I started with, God is waiting patiently. He is holding back His great and awesome wrath to be released upon the world for a few to be saved.

Jesus said that there are two ways out of this life. One is a great and broad way on which there are many, many people. The other only a few find and it is narrow. It has limited and restrictive space. It is a way that asks people not to follow after the world but to believe God. It is a narrow way and few there be that find it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

This is all way more than I can respond to in one lunch break. I've selected the following post because it follows my last response.

Hi willtor,

I agree that the discussion is inherently unbalanced, but I'm not sure that I come to that position for the same reasons that you do. You find that my answer immediately says that I am not using reason or textual analysis. Really? I'm fairly confident that reason and textual analysis are the very backbone of what I believe. It can't be faithfulness to God. Really? I believe it is not only faithfulness to God, but actually knowing God that leads me to my understanding.

But you have reached your conclusion a priori. You have said you are unwilling to admit the possibility that what I am saying is more correct. This has no relation to reason or textual analysis. If you will only hear and try to understand arguments that support your current viewpoint, it is not I who long to hear things that tickle my ears.

Further, it cannot be faithfulness. Nobody who loves the truth for its own sake is threatened by the frank evaluation of arguments for positions that differ from their own. Whereas I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and that you are right, you have said "no" when it has been turned around.

Have I misunderstood what you meant by "no" to that question? Will you amend your answer?

I've read the Scriptures through repeatedly. God created. He created this realm for the express and singular purpose of making a place for a creature that He called man to exist. God saw all the sin and faithlessness of mankind and destroyed everything save 8 people. God started over with Noah, called a man named Abram. Raised his generations into a nation of people to do His bidding. Part of that work that they were created for was to be the acting agent through which He would deliver His truth to His created.

Once God had patiently worked through Israel to complete His account of history, He then provided the way of salvation for mankind through the precious blood of His Son. God is going to bring it all to an end one day and then He will have accomplished the work for which He created this realm. He will draw from all the people who have ever lived a faithful remnant; a perfect harvest of mankind and for those few, for all eternity God will be their God and they will be His people.

Yes, I've reasoned and analyzed the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

And yet, you will listen to no argument that says you have misunderstood a point. This is not reason, and it is not analysis.

I will sum up with another question that I would like you to answer candidly:

Inasmuch as we address one another as equals -- open to each others' viewpoints and honestly evaluating arguments -- there is obvious value to discussion ("iron sharpens iron" and all that). What if I had said "no" when you asked me if I were open to the possibility that I were wrong and that you had a more sound interpretation? Would you conclude that I were interested in reason, textual analysis, and being faithful? If your answer is no, how shall I conclude that you are interested in the same?

 

[miamited]

This is all way more than I can respond to in one lunch break. I've selected the following post because it follows my last response.



But you have reached your conclusion a priori. You have said you are unwilling to admit the possibility that what I am saying is more correct. This has no relation to reason or textual analysis. If you will only hear and try to understand arguments that support your current viewpoint, it is not I who long to hear things that tickle my ears.

Hi willtor,

I hope that you enjoy your lunch and I'm really sorry to take that time from you so please don't feel like you have to rush to respond to my posts. I'm a fairly patient man. Yes, I am unwilling to admit the possibility that what you are saying is more correct. Because I know that it isn't. I don't understand why you seem to think that because I know something to be true that I am then stepping away from reason or textual analysis. I have analyzed the text. I have reasoned what it says. I am hearing what you say. I have considered your argument. I don't understand why people say, just because someone is firm in what they believe, that they are closed minded or only listening to arguments that support their viewpoint.

I've listened to your arguments. I've responded to a lot of the double-speak that you use to support your understanding and I have soundly rejected it as truth. Why do you think to yourself in your mind that I haven't heard what you've said and that I haven't listened and considered the things you have said. However, based on all the evidence and argument that you have up to this point produced, I'm not willing to admit that you could be correct. That's all. I'm not willing to admit that the flood account could be some 'true' mythical story because I know that it isn't.

As others have come in here and put in their two cents worth, there is plenty of evidence to support an understanding and belief that the flood and the ark and Noah's family were real events that happened in real time here on the earth.

You have argued that you believe it to be a 'true' myth based on your understanding of literary types and cultures of peoples that did use myths to make seemingly valid points in ages past. I understand and I agree that their are literary types. I absolutely believe all the Greek mythologies and Roman mythologies and Egyptian mythologies sometimes made valid points regarding human nature, but I'm sorry, the flood account doesn't fit with any of these. God said, "I am grieved that I even created man upon the earth. I am going to destroy every living thing upon it." And He did! However, He still had His ultimate purpose to get to and so He saved Noah and his family from His great wrath upon the earth and started over again. He made a promise to Noah that never again would He do such a thing again.

I am solidly convicted and convinced that the account of the flood and the account of Noah and his family and the ark which carried them to safety were real actual events that happened in the history of the earth. You want me to say, "Well, yea, maybe willtor is right and all of that was really some 'true' myth that was really designed to give man some deeper understanding of God." I reject that! God was grieved that He made man. The flood was God's method to destroy man. The ark was God's way to save one family. There really was a worldwide flood and it did destroy all living creatures that moved about the earth except for those in the ark. A real vessel that really existed that Noah and his family and several hundred animals rode in to ride out the year of the flood. I am solidly convicted and convinced that such is true. You want me to acquiesce that your understanding may be correct, and I'm truly sorry, but I won't.

But I don't say that because I don't understand literary genres. I don't say that because I haven't listened to your arguments. I do understand literary genres and I have listened to your argument and so far, nothing you have said, causes me to think to myself, "hmmmm, maybe ol' willtor is right."

Further, it cannot be faithfulness. Nobody who loves the truth for its own sake is threatened by the frank evaluation of arguments for positions that differ from their own. Whereas I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and that you are right, you have said "no" when it has been turned around.

Have I misunderstood what you meant by "no" to that question? Will you amend your answer?

I'm not 'threatened by the frank evaluation of the arguments for positions that differ from (my) own'. I have evaluated the evidence. I have weighed both positions. Yours just doesn't add up. No, I'm not looking to amend my answer and I imagine that you understood my 'no' correctly.

Let me please ask you, if you are open to the possibility that I am right and you are wrong, then why don't you agree with me? I mean, where is the fairness in your argument. You think I should listen to your evidence and come to understand and agree with you. Turn that around. You don't seem much interested in accepting my evidence as true. If you were to respond to that statement you'd probably write back pretty much exactly what I just wrote to you in my opening paragraphs to you in this post. "Oh, I've listened. Oh, I've heard you. Oh, I've considered your evidence. But I don't agree."

And yet, you will listen to no argument that says you have misunderstood a point. This is not reason, and it is not analysis.

I'm guessing that you don't see that your position is exactly the same.

I will sum up with another question that I would like you to answer candidly:

Inasmuch as we address one another as equals -- open to each others' viewpoints and honestly evaluating arguments -- there is obvious value to discussion ("iron sharpens iron" and all that). What if I had said "no" when you asked me if I were open to the possibility that I were wrong and that you had a more sound interpretation? Would you conclude that I were interested in reason, textual analysis, and being faithful? If your answer is no, how shall I conclude that you are interested in the same?

I would have presented the evidence that I have and if you were still unconvinced then I would have understood that you are a man, just like me. A man who has his beliefs and has based them on what he believes to be sound evaluation and evidence.

Friend, I share the gospel with people all the time. Would you care to guess how many times my evidence and understanding are rejected? People believe what they believe and they believe that what they believe is the truth. Do you realize that Jesus walked on this earth and knew the truth of God better than any individual who has ever set foot on this earth, and yet the majority of Israel didn't believe him. Now, do you think that they didn't believe him because they believed that what they believed was a lie? No, they believed that what they believed was the truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted