Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just trying to understand how you interpret this, do you suggest that the ark was symbolic?We can say that Jesus asking his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood was not all that literal and do that without outright denying the essential points of the Christian Faith.
We can even say it is far more essential.
It's the 2nd time you mentioned this, what's the difference between a water tight building and a ship, and why is this so important?The author makes the common mistake (among many) of assuming that the ark was a "ship", requiring design skills unknown at the time. It was a large, watertight building, just as the story reveals.
The author did get this part right.
"Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tale, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity."
Well, it was symbolic for Noah's Ark, and for the nation of Israel, and for Christianity, and likely more.Just trying to understand how you interpret this, do you suggest that the ark was symbolic?
Shalom
"Earth’s land masses move toward and away from each other at an average rate of about 0.6 inch a year. That’s about the rate that human toenails grow! Some regions, such as coastal California, move quite fast in geological terms — almost two inches a year — relative to the more stable interior of the continental United States. At the “seams” where tectonic plates come in contact, the crustal rocks may grind violently against each other, causing earthquakes and volcano eruptions. The relatively fast movement of the tectonic plates under California explains the frequent earthquakes that occur there."Could you possibly explain in more detail what would happen if the plates did rapidly move apart?
There are various dating methods. No one in real science depends on only one method.And what is your response to all those who claim that the dating is unreliable?
Since show moving plates by YEC claims cause volcanos, common sense tells me rapid moving plates will cause too much heat, destroying all life, even that on the ark. How much volcanic land is there today?I have no credentials. And ok cool I don't know what's up with the tag but I'm satisfied.
Anyways could you tell me what would be the results of tectonic plates rapidly moving and creating a universal flood? Whether it actually happened or not that's not what I'm looking for I'm looking for what the results would be if hypothetically it did happen.
YEC please use Non-YEC sources, sites to back up your claims.See my post #9
I see your earlier post and I can agree that those conditions would definitely threaten life. That is why some would say all life died except what was on the ark. Im not sure that I completely buy that. However, there are some who believe that earth was covered in water early on.
Was The Earth Ever Totally Underwater? » Science ABC
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | National Center for Science EducationAgain some would argue about the dating methods. Those are irrelevant for what I'm looking for. Could the water cover the earth completely at some point in the past (I don't care at what point)? How did that water get there?
We already know that the water would be a few inches deep. There is simply not enough water on our planet.If the earth were an absolutely perfect sphere, no mountains or valleys whatsoever, then, yes, the existing water would completely cover the surface. As to where the water came from in the first place, that is a very debatable scientific question.
Any Geology book has answered those questions and many more.I do believe it would be a big ask for me to believe a universal flood happened after there were mountains. I agree there would have to be no mountains. Now the question is could the tectonic plates move rapidly to where the result would be a universal flood complete with tsunamis, earthquakes, and vulcanism releasing yet more water and give rise to the mountains and other geographic features?
Sorry, I must have been out to lunch when you posted this question. Someone posted on this thread today and thus revived it.
All flood evidence is local regardless of how wide or big the flood is. Evidence depends on topography, vegetation type, soil type, elevation gradient, velocity of inflow and outflow, etc. Also weathering and settling of flood evidence varies over time and distance, making it difficult or impossible to determine a 'global' flood event, leaving similar flood myth and legend among many cultures actually more evidentiary than geology.
Also add that the word earth simply meant dirt.The flood of the Bible cannot be taken as universal (global) for several simple reasons:
1. The people who wrote the story didn't know what a planet was, how could they describe a planet-wide event?
2. For the people who wrote the story, the "world" was literally the size of Texas.
3. You can never project modern knowledge or meanings into the Bible. Just because we think it was global doesn't mean they did.
Having said that, the flood of Genesis has been confirmed by at least a half dozen ancient sources. There's no question that it did happen.
If you study the biblical story carefully you'll quickly see that the biblical flood and the flood that is debunked by science and scholars isn't the same flood. For example, the bible nowhere suggests a huge vapor 'canopy' that came crashing to earth during the flood. The narrative simply says it rained for forty days and nights.
Also the certainty that man had spread beyond Mesopotamia requires a wider flood. The year long duration of the flood must also be considered. This would serve to kill any that survived the initial flooding as they would eventually perish from starvation or exposure.
Also of note is that scholars and other critics continue to call the ark a "ship" (then present arguments against its 'seaworthiness'). It was actually a large watertight warehouse.
Regarding geological evidence, the slow moving flood would leave little, and that would have been degraded over the millenia.
Noah's global world based on knowledge back then was very limited. They would not know about the Americas of our time for example.There are several things I have to take issue with here, but I'll leave this for now as I don't think there's any need to be contentious about whether the flood is local or global. Suffice to say, though, I believe it would be a mistake to understand the flood in naturalistic terms, because it's recorded for us as a miracle. I'll leave it at that.
What I must insist on, however, is that the people who perished in the flood is all people, and not all people in a certain region. You are right in that the Holy Scriptures uses "all" in two senses: one referring to all locally, and the other, all globally (and in a third sense as hyperbole). In this instance, the context demands that "all" is global. We can know this from the immediate context as well as the broader context. For one, God limits man's life to 120 years, and this is universal. Likewise, the wickedness on earth is also universal. The rainbow is universal. So, the Lord is not dealing with a local people or tribe, but all people. It's also the plain reading when considering the whole narrative. There's nothing in the immediate text itself to indicate that this is dealing with a group of people when the context deals with all people; there's no indication that the text jumps between two meanings. To think otherwise would be to impose a foreign understanding into the text which doesn't belong.
That the text deals with all people can also be understood from the broader context. Compare our Lord using it as an example of His return to judgment of all people, particularly when bearing in mind what Peter writes in his epistles — especially the mention that only eight survived, and that this corresponds to Baptism, which is universal.
There is a place for reason in exegesis, but reason should be governed by God's Word. That is, our understanding of a text should not be shaped by theories. The Bible expresses that all perished in the flood, except for Noah and his family, and so we confess exactly that and nothing more.
The author makes the common mistake (among many) of assuming that the ark was a "ship", requiring design skills unknown at the time. It was a large, watertight building, just as the story reveals.
The author did get this part right.
"Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tale, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity."
"Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tale, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity."
So what do you propose?The rest of the quote and context:
"Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no. Even this sensational find is not enough to validate a literal reading of Genesis. Our continuing skepticism is in the tradition of philosopher David Hume, who wrote that "the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature." As we shall see, the story of the great flood and the voyage of the ark, as expounded by modern creationists, contains so many incredible "violations of the laws of nature" that it cannot possibly be accepted by any thinking person. Despite ingenious efforts to lend a degree of plausibility to the tale, nothing can be salvaged without the direct and constant intervention of the deity.
Building the Ark
The requirements of the story.
To make this point clear, let's start at the beginning of the biblical narrative and follow the story step by step. From the moment the impending storm is announced (Genesis 6:7, 13, 17) and Jehovah sets forth the design and dimensions of the ark (Genesis 6:14-16), problems start appearing.
The ark is to be made out of gopher wood according to a plan that calls for the ark to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits tall (450x75x45 feet, according to most creationists. See Segraves, p. 11). It is to contain three floors, a large door in the side, and a one cubit square window at the top. The floors are to be divided into rooms, and all the walls, inside and out, are to be pitched with pitch. Since the purpose of the ark is to hold animals and plants, particularly two of "every living thing of all flesh . . . to keep them alive with thee" (Genesis 6:19), it will have to be constructed accordingly.
- page 2 -
Most creationists simply breeze through this description of the size and requirements of the ark without a second glance ("It is hard to believe that intelligent people see a problem here" — LaHaye and Morris, The Ark on Ararat, p. 248), often with a passing comment about the architectural skill of ancient peoples as manifested in the Seven Wonders of the World. But Noah's boatbuilding accomplishments have not been fully appreciated by his fans."
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | National Center for Science Education
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?