Why the Ark?

[Nooj]

Why did God tell Noah to build an Ark, as opposed to simply teleporting the animals and his family away?

 

[Mick116]

Maybe, to test his faith?

 

[Nooj]

Maybe, to test his faith?

The Ark served no purpose other than to tax Noah's time and money, just to see how devoted he was?

If God used the Ark as a method to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak, to make sure that Noah was worthy of saving (ignoring the fact that God probably knew what Noah would do, the whole predestination thing), then after the completion of the Ark and the monumental task, why didn't God simply teleport Noah and his family and his animals from Earth? The test was over. Instead God leaves Noah and his family and a whole lot of animals hanging for 180 days. For what purpose?

Heck, why use the form of a global Flood that doesn't distinguish between animals and the evil people? A clean, targeted lightning bolt for all the evil people would save the animals of the Earth without the need for seven pairs of clean animals and a pair of unclean animals on the Ark.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Ark served no purpose other than to tax Noah's time and money, just to see how devoted he was?

If God used the Ark as a method to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak, to make sure that Noah was worthy of saving (ignoring the fact that God probably knew what Noah would do, the whole predestination thing), then after the completion of the Ark and the monumental task, why didn't God simply teleport Noah and his family and his animals from Earth? The test was over. Instead God leaves Noah and his family and a whole lot of animals hanging for 180 days. For what purpose?

Heck, why use the form of a global Flood that doesn't distinguish between animals and the evil people? A clean, targeted lightning bolt for all the evil people would save the animals of the Earth without the need for seven pairs of clean animals and a pair of unclean animals on the Ark.

Stop taking the story literally and see it for what it was intended ...the theological implications are what it is about not the actuality of what anyone could see would be impossible in fact. And please no "with God anything is possible" stuff.. That just begs the question.

If God wanted the Bible to be an instruction manual I think he would have done a better job. It's about the faith lessons our ancestors learned and wished to convey. It's about how they visioned God in their lives.

 

[Macca]

Stop taking the story literally and see it for what it was intended ...the theological implications are what it is about not the actuality of what anyone could see would be impossible in fact. And please no "with God anything is possible" stuff.. That just begs the question.

If God wanted the Bible to be an instruction manual I think he would have done a better job. It's about the faith lessons our ancestors learned and wished to convey. It's about how they visioned God in their lives.

Begs what question?
Why not take the story literally? Jesus believed in Noah, the ark and a flood.

 

[metherion]

Nooooooooo, Jesus REFERENCED the myths of Genesis. Nowhere does it says Jesus believed in them as literal truth. Nowhere are we given to understand such a thing. If I reference the Babylonian story of the world being created out of the body of a slain god, does it mean I believe it? So, if Jesus references the Hebrew story of God making human in two genders, or a worldwide Flood, does it mean He actually believed it happened?

If the answers to those two questions are different, something is seriously wrong with your logics. (yes, I misspelled that on purpose.)

So, why not take the story literally? Because the universe, which we are told we can know God by, tells us otherwise. Because nowhere does it says that the story is supposed to be literal infallible truth. Because there are two versions. Because there are so many things wrong with it, that cannot be fixed without invoking un-communicated miracles, and if there are un-communicated miracles, then who knows what else is uncommunicated? Maybe the line about "And yeah verily, each day spoken of in this story is a metaphorical day and this actually happened over ~14 billion years using naturalistic means"?

And so on.

Metherion

 

[shernren]

Whether the Merchant of Venice historically and literally happened or not, never call me a Shylock nor hear me ask for a pound of flesh.

 

[busterdog]

Why did God tell Noah to build an Ark, as opposed to simply teleporting the animals and his family away?

Surely you have heard of Enoch?

You mean, why didn't he also teleport Noah and the animals also?

Let's ask this:

What are the rules around here for this planet anyway and who makes them?

 

[gluadys]

Begs what question?
Why not take the story literally? Jesus believed in Noah, the ark and a flood.

Believing in something doesn't necessarily mean taking it literally. I know of no indication in the gospels that Jesus took the flood story literally.

 

[Macca]

Believing in something doesn't necessarily mean taking it literally. I know of no indication in the gospels that Jesus took the flood story literally.

I am beginning to understand why Jesus told His disciples not to cast pearl before swine!
26 “When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. 27 In those days, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat and the flood came and destroyed them all.
: Holy Bible : New Living Translation. Lk 7:26-27
Certainly sounds like Jesus believed the account of the flood in Noah's day.

 

[greeker57married]

Nooooooooo, Jesus REFERENCED the myths of Genesis. Nowhere does it says Jesus believed in them as literal truth. Nowhere are we given to understand such a thing. If I reference the Babylonian story of the world being created out of the body of a slain god, does it mean I believe it? So, if Jesus references the Hebrew story of God making human in two genders, or a worldwide Flood, does it mean He actually believed it happened?

If the answers to those two questions are different, something is seriously wrong with your logics. (yes, I misspelled that on purpose.)

So, why not take the story literally? Because the universe, which we are told we can know God by, tells us otherwise. Because nowhere does it says that the story is supposed to be literal infallible truth. Because there are two versions. Because there are so many things wrong with it, that cannot be fixed without invoking un-communicated miracles, and if there are un-communicated miracles, then who knows what else is uncommunicated? Maybe the line about "And yeah verily, each day spoken of in this story is a metaphorical day and this actually happened over ~14 billion years using naturalistic means"?

And so on.

Metherion

Well, we are two gender humans today, male and female. Your interpretation of the historical events of the flood and Noah are ridiculous. Yes I do believe the miracles of the Old Testament. I believe in the inspiration of Scripture.

Sincerely
Greeker

 

[metherion]

So if someone doesn't believe it literally happened, they don't believe in the Bible?

And if it is inspired it must be true word for word?

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

I am beginning to understand why Jesus told His disciples not to cast pearl before swine!
26 “When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. 27 In those days, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat and the flood came and destroyed them all.
: Holy Bible : New Living Translation. Lk 7:26-27
Certainly sounds like Jesus believed the account of the flood in Noah's day.

Oh I agree, he believed it. I said so in the post you are so impolitely responding to. But there is nothing in that citation that says he believed it literally.

 

[Macca]

Oh I agree, he believed it. I said so in the post you are so impolitely responding to. But there is nothing in that citation that says he believed it literally.

Believing in the flood and not believing it literally is a oxy-moron.

 

[Mallon]

Believing in the flood and not believing it literally is a oxy-moron.

Do you believe Jesus' parables?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Do you believe Jesus' parables?

That he said them, or that they are literal, are you really trying to compare the two? To the OP: Now, why don't you ask God? His ways are higher than our ways, I can't tell you why God did something the way he did it. I can only guess.
Now, I think the flood happened. You could say it is because of certain scriptures. [bible]Genesis 11:10-26[/bible] What would be the point of this if it was merely a myth? I could look in Chronicles, but that isn't the scripture i'm talking about, I just found it while looking back through Genesis.

[bible]Genesis 9:18-19[/bible]

And through Genesis we then go to where it's mentioned in the New Testament. [bible]2 Peter 3:2-7[/bible]

Another thing (though not especially relevant), what do you all make of the sabbath? Why is it in place if you all say that Creation didn't happen? (Well, not in the way the bible says anyway.) Was it all a lie? I get this from these verses. [bible]Exodus 20:8-12[/bible] This is past Genesis, this is God addressing Moses on the mountain by now..

 

[gluadys]

What would be the point of this if it was merely a myth?

"Merely a myth". The denigration of "myth" by the term "merely" marks your outlook as modern and far removed from that of biblical days.

I take it you contend that a truth conveyed via a myth is inferior to a truth stated literally?

Why would that be? Why would a God who delights in teaching through telling stories have a problem with providing his people with appropriate myths for their edification?

And through Genesis we then go to where it's mentioned in the New Testament. [bible]2 Peter 3:2-7[/bible]

And that is a beautiful example of how the story was used in a later generation to illustrate the truth of the gospel.

Another thing (though not especially relevant), what do you all make of the sabbath? Why is it in place if you all say that Creation didn't happen? (Well, not in the way the bible says anyway.)

Glad you corrected yourself. We most certainly believe creation happened. We even believe it happened as the bible says. We just don't believe the story is to be understood as if it were a journalist's report on literal events. So we believe it happened just as the bible non-literally says.

As for the sabbath, it is key to the creation story. The first creation account makes it the crown of creation. And this is only the beginning. There is a lot more to the Sabbath than counting days. It is a major biblical theme and well worth a thorough study of its many ramifications.

 

[Nooj]

What would be the point of this if it was merely a myth? I could look in Chronicles, but that isn't the scripture i'm talking about, I just found it while looking back through Genesis.

You answered it yourself:

To the OP: Now, why don't you ask God? His ways are higher than our ways, I can't tell you why God did something the way he did it. I can only guess.

 

[USincognito]

Why did God tell Noah to build an Ark, as opposed to simply teleporting the animals and his family away?

The Flood story is a lesson in being righteous and being faithful to God's directives. As such it doesn't have to be literal since it teaches an important theological lesson. The citations of Noah's sons and which people they "fathered" is a Creation Myth that explains who the Hebrews were amongst their neighbors - hence the lack of references to Chinese, Mayans or Khoisan.

 

[Mallon]

That he said them, or that they are literal, are you really trying to compare the two?

Macca said that "Believing in the flood and not believing it literally is a oxy-moron." But clearly, this is not the case, given that we believe Jesus' parables despite the fact that they were not meant literally. In the same way, we can still believe the Creation or Flood accounts without ever believing they happened as described in the Bible. Why? Because we know God accomodates for our intellectual, cultural, and temporal limitations. The message God is trying to communicate in these accounts is a spiritual one (would you expect anything else?), delivered in the vessel of ancient Near Eastern mythology, as was the custom of their time. Imposing a 21st century attitude on the Scriptures by assuming they were written to be scientifically sound is not the way the original biblical audience would have understood the text, as such an approach was foreign to them.