Noah's Ark

[Monsoon X]

What are some of the biggest problems you have with the story of Noah and the Ark? Let's limit this discussion to the Ark itself and the animals. The Flood can be discussed in another thread.

To jump start it:

Ark facts:
450ft long
75 ft W
45ft high
est. total available floor space: over 100,000sqft
est. total cubic volume: 1,518,000 cubic feet (eq: 569 RR cars)

[Leif]

How was something like this built given the times and tools available. (I know pyramids were built too and we can't explain why)

How long did it take?

How many people worked on it?

It speaks of the animals on board but what of the humans? I mean it must of taken hundreds of people to built a boat of that size and then to say... oh yea it's going to flood everyone dies but you can't come.

Sorry thought I'd throw a few out there for ya.

[The Big Matt]

wouldn't it be closer to 200,000 sq feet

assuming that

each level was 8 feet high, except the last level which was open air, and could house the taller animals, giraffes, your favorite ;)

so you had 5.6 floors, so let's say 6 levels.

ok 6 levels
top level was 33,750 sq feet, it's the highest point of the boat, so it would have to have been the exact 450x75, then each level slightly gets smaller, so let's assume you lose 10 percent per floor.

level 1 - 33750
level 2 - 30375
level 3 - 27337
level 4 - 24604
level 5 - 22143
level 6 - 19929

total - 158,138

now let's assume that there were above deck levels, like many ships this size

An area just for Noah and his family, then let's say two stories under neath it, which were approximately 300x50. - so another 30,000 sq feet.

Making a grand total of 188,138 sq feet

Now this is decent sized, but let's also remember that considering one of each animal, which there are millions of different species, how could he have possibly fit, let's guesstimate, 2,000,000 animals ranging from as small as a rodent to as large as an African Elephant.

It doesn't possibly make sense on that size of a boat. Even if you had one of the Navy's largest Aircraft Carriers, you couldn't fit two of every species on it.

Now onto construction. Who built the Ark? Noah?? Or did he know a boat guy, who entrusted a large team to construct it, let's say it takes 3-5 years to complete an Aircraft Carrier, with today's technology. Now that seems like a fair time to build an Ark of this size using the technology of the times in which it was supposedly constructed. And that's with a team of professional boat builders.

There is no way in hell it happened.

Done

[46Tbird]

How do you keep the carnivores from eating other animals? You have to take into consideration the food that 2,000,000 animals (VERY conservative, BTW) would have to eat, and not just for the boat ride - what about during the years it took him to get animals? How would he get animals from Africa, N America, Europe, Asia, S America, and Antarctica without at least one of them running away and having to go back? People today can't keep dogs from digging out from under their fence! Fresh water, sanitation, ventilation, these are issues that are never mentioned, etc. You would think such a huge undertaking would involve at least some documentation, but maybe not if Noah was conversing with God. Where were the animals kept before they boarded the boat?

off the top of my head

[Leif]

no where did it say he took one of every specie... just every animal... and didn't it say 2 of each? one male one female?

it's not 2 dobermans, 2 yorkies, 2 poodles

it's 2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 rats, 2 lizards, etc.

At least this is how I always read it.

[MoonDog]

He actually took 2 each of the "unclean" animals and 7 each of the "clean" animals.

Matt, how large would an infant or adolescent African Elephant be?

Danny, if you believe that God is in control then you must also believe that God put it in the hearts and minds of the animals to go to the ark themselves. Noah did not have to gather up the animals himself, that just would have taken to long. God brought the animals to him. I would guess that many of the questions you have fresh water, sanitation, ventilation and such are not mentioned because to the reader they are just not that important. It is a story about what was done, not how it was done. If every little detail was included throughout the bible then the whole Library of Congress would not be able to hold it.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by MoonDog
I would guess that many of the questions you have fresh water, sanitation, ventilation and such are not mentioned because to the reader they are just not that important.

To the technological infant society 2000 years ago, yes. They defecated in a pot and poured it out the window.

To a more advanced society, who is aware about disease and the conditions needed to survive, the lack of these details become a weakness. Two of each animal? Welcome to a shallow genepool.

To me, the Old Testament is a story book akin to a fairy tale. It's not to be taken literally, but to provide moral lessons and explanations for traditions and why things are the way they are.

What beter way to explain the existance of a law than to tell the story of how a previous violator was smited by Almighty God.

[MoonDog]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and beliefs Chris. But for me, when the Bible says that it is the "Word Of God" and that God cannot lie, then that is what it means. To say that the OT is just stories and fables would be to call God, in my opinion, a liar.

On the otherhand, just because the Bible is all true that does not mean that it contains all truth. There are truths that we may never know and maybe we dont need to know when looking at the big picture. To me this is not a weakness. If everything was contained in the Bible and everything could be proven to be true there would be no use for faith. Jesus said that the ones who have not seen yet still believe are blessed. I would rather be blessed from God then be faithless. Yet many of the people walking around today claiming to be Christians have no faith and are nothing more than walking dead.

[01WhiteCobra]

There are almost 1,000,000 different species of insect, so there would be about 2,000,000 insects alone.

Unless the insects are considered clean animals, then there would be almost 7,000,000 insects.

Not mention the amount of food these animals would require for 40 days and 40 nights.

And the excrement they would leave, the toxic nature of the gases from that excrement, etc.

[MoonDog]

I dont think insects are considered animals. So I dont think they would be mentioned. Also, in Exodus it is mentioned that flies are a plague that God sends on the Egyptians. So it very well could mean that before that time flies never exsisted. Just a guess though.

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Danny, if you believe that God is in control then you must also believe that God put it in the hearts and minds of the animals to go to the ark themselves. Where does free will fit into this? :confused:

And don't say animals don't have free will - my dog exercises free will everytime he craps on the carpet. :D

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by The Big Matt
wouldn't it be closer to 200,000 sq feet

assuming that

each level was 8 feet high, except the last level which was open air, and could house the taller animals, giraffes, your favorite ;)

so you had 5.6 floors, so let's say 6 levels.

ok 6 levels
top level was 33,750 sq feet, it's the highest point of the boat, so it would have to have been the exact 450x75, then each level slightly gets smaller, so let's assume you lose 10 percent per floor.

level 1 - 33750
level 2 - 30375
level 3 - 27337
level 4 - 24604
level 5 - 22143
level 6 - 19929

total - 158,138

now let's assume that there were above deck levels, like many ships this size

An area just for Noah and his family, then let's say two stories under neath it, which were approximately 300x50. - so another 30,000 sq feet.

Making a grand total of 188,138 sq feet

The problem with your equations is the inordinate amount of assumptions. God gave Noah specific dimensions to build the ark. Of course you can add your assumptions if they make you feel better but, they have no bearing on the validity of the account. So basically you assume and then come up with what you call truth. hmmm Just like the dating methods. You can make anything lose storage space by sectioning it off. You have no idea how the decks were arranged. So your assumptions are overridden.

[mikeb]

I think that some of ya'll are making the classic human mistake of putting God "into a box" of human understanding. Think outside the box.

I'm sure He was well aware of the logistics and made provisions for everything. After all, Noah was operating within His will and thus God would provide for Noah's needs.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by MoonDog
I dont think insects are considered animals. So I dont think they would be mentioned. Also, in Exodus it is mentioned that flies are a plague that God sends on the Egyptians. So it very well could mean that before that time flies never exsisted. Just a guess though.

Insects (and spiders and scorpions) belong to the anthropods, which are animals.

[01WhiteCobra]

This is what was fed to the residents of the Dallas Zoo on Thanksgiving:

A ton of hay,
35 pounds of fish,
50 pounds of meat,
100 stalks of celery,
five pounds of red onions,
100 pounds of carrots,
25 pounds of spinach,
15 pounds of kale,
10 pounds of mixed vegetables,
150 pounds of sweet potatoes,
10 heads of cabbage,
48 heads of romaine,
30 ears of corn,
four loaves of wheat bread,
24 eggs,
a pound of yogurt,
40 pounds of bananas,
eight pounds of blueberries,
170 oranges,
500 apples,
36 cantaloupes,
four papayas,
250 rodents (the variety pack),
6000 mealworms,
600 wax worms and
7500 crickets.


And how long did these animals and Noah stay on the ark as the waters subsided? 12 Months? 14 Months?

[Monsoon X]

Here's something else to chew on. True there are over 1,000,000 species on this planet. The vast majority are capable of surving in water.

-21k species of fish
-1,700 tunicates
-600 echinoderms
-107,000 mollusks
-10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones
-5,000 species of sponges
-30,000 protozoans
-35,000 species of worms

Let's not forget the mammals that live in the sea (whales,dolphins,seals) a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs live in the water. The insects in arthropoda are usually very small. Plus many insects are able to survive outside the ark.

Next, you guys assume that they needed full grown, animals don't you? LOL (baby giraffes, lion cubs, baby elephants...I could go on.)

My, how the number shrinks when we start using our sense.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
Next, you guys assume that they needed full grown, animals don't you? LOL (baby giraffes, lion cubs, baby elephants...I could go on.)

My, how the number shrinks when we start using our sense.

And what would be the logical explanation for the production of hundreds (thousands?) of gallons of milk that would be required to feed the babies?

[01WhiteCobra]

How did the flightless dodos get back to their island?

[PWTRTXSS]

I am not a genetics person and it looks like science has no place in the thread anyway but ...

Wouldn't have all of the inbreeding that would have had to have happened for the animals to repopulate the world damaged the genes so much that at some point reproduction would have been impossible?

[01WhiteCobra]

Of course, forgetting about Ark creation at all...

God is powerful enough to create galaxies in an instant. Why would he have filddled with water in the first place to flood the Earth?

Not to mention the size of the earth and Mt Everest being almost 6 miles tall. It would take a rain in the order of about 660 feet per day to flood the earth so that Everest was covered by 15 cubits.

660 feet per day would be require the ulitmate in sea faring vessels. I doubt the QEII would survive a rain fall of 660' per day.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Of course, forgetting about Ark creation at all...

God is powerful enough to create galaxies in an instant. Why would he have filddled with water in the first place to flood the Earth? I'll ask Him one day. ;)



Not to mention the size of the earth and Mt Everest being almost 6 miles tall. It would take a rain in the order of about 660 feet per day to flood the earth so that Everest was covered by 15 cubits.

660 feet per day would be require the ulitmate in sea faring vessels. I doubt the QEII would survive a rain fall of 660' per day.
Read the Bible. It wasn't just rain that contributed to the waters.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
How did the flightless dodos get back to their island?

Who knows? I don't. I wasn't there, I believe it happened though. Consider this:

When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually colonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did.

Life has a way of moving on.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
I'll ask Him one day. ;)



Read the Bible. It wasn't just rain that contributed to the waters.

Book/Chapter would be helpful, thanks.

Now, what about all those babies requiring mother's milk?

[The Big Matt]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
The problem with your equations is the inordinate amount of assumptions. God gave Noah specific dimensions to build the ark. Of course you can add your assumptions if they make you feel better but, they have no bearing on the validity of the account. So basically you assume and then come up with what you call truth. hmmm Just like the dating methods. You can make anything lose storage space by sectioning it off. You have no idea how the decks were arranged. So your assumptions are overridden.

I actually increased storage space.

did you even read what I wrote, or did you just "assume" i was making stuff up

sure he gave him specific directions on what to build, but is there a sketch or even a blueprint in the bible? no, so how would you know that my assumptions are wrong?

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Book/Chapter would be helpful, thanks.

Now, what about all those babies requiring mother's milk?

Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2

Sorry, that is my bad. Maybe not babies but, surely smaller versions. I've seen baby lions eating meat on the Discovery channel and they are still the size of an average Golden Lab

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by The Big Matt
sure he gave him specific directions on what to build, but is there a sketch or even a blueprint in the bible? no, so how would you know that my assumptions are wrong?

I don't know if your assumptions are wrong. How do you know they are right?

[The Big Matt]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
I don't know if your assumptions are wrong. How do you know they are right?

And this my friends is how all religous talks usually end...

how do you know it's true...
how do you know it's not true...

:D

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by The Big Matt
And this my friends is how all religous talks usually end...

how do you know it's true...
how do you know it's not true...

:D

But the major difference is that I've given you data built around the requirements set in my "fairy tale" book. And being a fairy tale, it should be easily disproved. It has not been. Creationist scientists are giving just as much plausible info as Evolutionary scientists, to support the creationist's stance. Your assumptions on how the inside of the Ark was arranged still provide more than enough room for the true number of animals that needed to be on the Ark as well as the food.

I keep forgetting that Evolutionary Science is based on a ton of assumptions. :p ahem......carbon dating.....(where is Epilade?) ;)

[PWTRTXSS]

Originally posted by The Big Matt
And this my friends is how all religous talks usually end...

how do you know it's true...
how do you know it's not true...

:D

We do know one thing for sure...
The bible is flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by PWTRTXSS
We do know one thing for sure...
The bible is flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Please show me a flaw. Let's discuss this. Start another thread with your proposed flaws.

[PWTRTXSS]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
Please show me a flaw. Let's discuss this. Start another thread with your proposed flaws.

What makes you think it isn't flawed?

j/k

I will start a new thread.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by PWTRTXSS
What makes you think it isn't flawed?





What makes you think it is?

[The Big Matt]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
What makes you think it is?

ummm JC, he asked first

you can't go on all day, saying, no you show me first

[01WhiteCobra]

Again, concerning the reason why Noah was commanded to build the Ark in the first place.

It really does seem like a silly way to rid of the world of sinners. And, in reality, it didn't work. Look around at what humans have become. It is AT LEAST as bad as it would have been during Noah's time. Did God fail?

Surely, God would know it would turn out this way again.

Why go to the troubles he did? And why the animals (other than humans) in the first place? Do animals (other than humans) understand sin? Why kill 99.9999% of the rabbits out there, just because man screwed up?

Of course, this includes all the children and babies that couldn't have possibly sinned yet. Did they go to heaven? Since they hadn't sinned yet, they couldn't possibly go to hell.

God does work in mysterious ways.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by MoonDog
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and beliefs Chris. But for me, when the Bible says that it is the "Word Of God" and that God cannot lie, then that is what it means. To say that the OT is just stories and fables would be to call God, in my opinion, a liar.


That's part of my point about control of a population/society. But I'll get to that in a second.

While the basic tenent of God is infallibility, Man's basic tenent is that he IS fallible. And as the Bible was written by Man, it is not pure. Man may SAY that it is pure, but the basic nuts and bolts is that it isn't and all the written text to the contrary doesn't change that.

An example of this fallibility is translation. The sixth Commandment is a good example. What was originally "Thou Shalt not Murder" was changed due to theological politics, human emotions and generally translation by committee into "Thou shalt not kill". There is a huge difference between the two words, but that's the danger of taking things literally as the Word of God.

Would you agree that the population of the Jewish faith (the OT was written specifically for them after all) was largely lawless, uneducated and in need of structure? (For coloration I point to the Bible's depection of the jewish slaves at the base of Mt Sinai) By using God as the Ultimate Lawgiver and pointing out throughout the entire OT various crimes and their punishments, the writers of the various books of the OT wrote the Jewish legal code with God as the ultimate judge.

By making the assertation that it was the Word of God and not to be questioned, it pretty much allowed the whole situation to operate by forbidding even the question if something was accurate. Its quite ingenious actually. "You wish to appeal? Please take this form to the 14th floor. What? There are only 10 floors in this building? Well I guess you can't appeal then, can you?" But putting the "fear of God" into the population, it brought them under control so the rulers of earthen governments had a much easier time.

But this, like other theological debates comes down to faith and the belief in something that can't be proven. Which makes arguing about it pointless and one sided.

[The Big Matt]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Again, concerning the reason why Noah was commanded to build the Ark in the first place.

It really does seem like a silly way to rid of the world of sinners. And, in reality, it didn't work. Look around at what humans have become. It is AT LEAST as bad as it would have been during Noah's time. Did God fail?

Surely, God would know it would turn out this way again.

Why go to the troubles he did? And why the animals (other than humans) in the first place? Do animals (other than humans) understand sin? Why kill 99.9999% of the rabbits out there, just because man screwed up?

Of course, this includes all the children and babies that couldn't have possibly sinned yet. Did they go to heaven? Since they hadn't sinned yet, they couldn't possibly go to hell.

God does work in mysterious ways.

Maybe he just opened up a new housing complex, and heaven was a bit empty and dull, so why not fill the place up?

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by Jedi
That's part of my point about control of a population/society. But I'll get to that in a second.

While the basic tenent of God is infallibility, Man's basic tenent is that he IS fallible. And as the Bible was written by Man, it is not pure. Man may SAY that it is pure, but the basic nuts and bolts is that it isn't and all the written text to the contrary doesn't change that.

An example of this fallibility is translation. The sixth Commandment is a good example. What was originally "Thou Shalt not Murder" was changed due to theological politics, human emotions and generally translation by committee into "Thou shalt not kill". There is a huge difference between the two words, but that's the danger of taking things literally as the Word of God.

Would you agree that the population of the Jewish faith (the OT was written specifically for them after all) was largely lawless, uneducated and in need of structure? (For coloration I point to the Bible's depection of the jewish slaves at the base of Mt Sinai) By using God as the Ultimate Lawgiver and pointing out throughout the entire OT various crimes and their punishments, the writers of the various books of the OT wrote the Jewish legal code with God as the ultimate judge.

By making the assertation that it was the Word of God and not to be questioned, it pretty much allowed the whole situation to operate by forbidding even the question if something was accurate. Its quite ingenious actually. "You wish to appeal? Please take this form to the 14th floor. What? There are only 10 floors in this building? Well I guess you can't appeal then, can you?" But putting the "fear of God" into the population, it brought them under control so the rulers of earthen governments had a much easier time.

But this, like other theological debates comes down to faith and the belief in something that can't be proven. Which makes arguing about it pointless and one sided.

I'll sum this novel up, :p by saying that to have a proper study of the bible if you wish to discredit it, it is important have proper study materials, namely a greek and hebrew dictionary. There are plenty available for study. Someone who believes in the word will see "Thou shall not kill" and be cool with it. You do not. However, there seems to be enough reference material for even you to come to the conclusion that the original text says murder. So therefore the validity of the bible and it's infallability remains intact.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Again, concerning the reason why Noah was commanded to build the Ark in the first place.

It really does seem like a silly way to rid of the world of sinners. And, in reality, it didn't work. Look around at what humans have become. It is AT LEAST as bad as it would have been during Noah's time. Did God fail?

Surely, God would know it would turn out this way again.

Why go to the troubles he did? And why the animals (other than humans) in the first place? Do animals (other than humans) understand sin? Why kill 99.9999% of the rabbits out there, just because man screwed up?

Of course, this includes all the children and babies that couldn't have possibly sinned yet. Did they go to heaven? Since they hadn't sinned yet, they couldn't possibly go to hell.

God does work in mysterious ways.

1 Corinthians 1: 20-31 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. 26 Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: F7 not many of you were wise by human standards, F8 not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, 29 so that no one F9 might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 in order that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

[Jedi]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
I'll sum this novel up, :p by saying that to have a proper study of the bible if you wish to discredit it, it is important have proper study materials, namely a greek and hebrew dictionary. There are plenty available for study. Someone who believes in the word will see "Thou shall not kill" and be cool with it. You do not. However, there seems to be enough reference material for even you to come to the conclusion that the original text says murder. So therefore the validity of the bible and it's infallability remains intact.

Basically you are saying that I cannot have an opinion on the Bible because I don't have a greek / hebrew dictionary?

Someone who believes they can read future events in a palm leaf will see what they want and be cool with it.

As for remaining intact? :confused: Therefore what? You haven't said anything other than "You don't know hebrew/greek or have spent years on the ancient texts so therefore your argument is baseless."

If that's your point, then 99% of us should just stop posting in this forum or even think about having a discussion about the Bible because we haven't had your version of a proper bible study.

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by Jedi
That's part of my point about control of a population/society. But I'll get to that in a second.

While the basic tenent of God is infallibility, Man's basic tenent is that he IS fallible. And as the Bible was written by Man, it is not pure. Man may SAY that it is pure, but the basic nuts and bolts is that it isn't and all the written text to the contrary doesn't change that.

An example of this fallibility is translation. The sixth Commandment is a good example. What was originally "Thou Shalt not Murder" was changed due to theological politics, human emotions and generally translation by committee into "Thou shalt not kill". There is a huge difference between the two words, but that's the danger of taking things literally as the Word of God.

Would you agree that the population of the Jewish faith (the OT was written specifically for them after all) was largely lawless, uneducated and in need of structure? (For coloration I point to the Bible's depection of the jewish slaves at the base of Mt Sinai) By using God as the Ultimate Lawgiver and pointing out throughout the entire OT various crimes and their punishments, the writers of the various books of the OT wrote the Jewish legal code with God as the ultimate judge.

By making the assertation that it was the Word of God and not to be questioned, it pretty much allowed the whole situation to operate by forbidding even the question if something was accurate. Its quite ingenious actually. "You wish to appeal? Please take this form to the 14th floor. What? There are only 10 floors in this building? Well I guess you can't appeal then, can you?" But putting the "fear of God" into the population, it brought them under control so the rulers of earthen governments had a much easier time.

But this, like other theological debates comes down to faith and the belief in something that can't be proven. Which makes arguing about it pointless and one sided.
I will agree that many of the translations we have availiable to us today have flaws. But as JC pointed out the Bible as originally presented in the Hebrew and Greek languages is indeed infallible and not merely written by man but written by God through man.

In Ecclesiastes 3 is says that there is a time to kill and a time to heal. Why would God say in Exodus not to kill then in Ecclesiastes say that it is OK? He didn't, the two passages use different words in the Hebrew. That is why it is important to go study the original languages when a person has a question or believes there is a contradiction.

You can certainly have an opinion but you must also be open minded because your opinion may be the wrong one. That goes vice versa too, for me or anyone else.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by Jedi
Basically you are saying that I cannot have an opinion on the Bible because I don't have a greek / hebrew dictionary?

Someone who believes they can read future events in a palm leaf will see what they want and be cool with it.

As for remaining intact? :confused: Therefore what? You haven't said anything other than "You don't know hebrew/greek or have spent years on the ancient texts so therefore your argument is baseless."

If that's your point, then 99% of us should just stop posting in this forum or even think about having a discussion about the Bible because we haven't had your version of a proper bible study.

Chris, homie, what I'm saying is that the original texts were written in Greek and Hebrew. They have been translated, true. But the tools to go back and get a proper meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek words are available for people to use. Especially when digging into the deeper things of God.

I said "the validity of the bible and it's infallability remains intact. " What was hard to understand about that? You were able to know the difference in the words used weren't you? And it is accordance with the original texts so...................."the validity of the bible and it's infallability remains intact. " As it has for many years. That's why this "fairy" tale book won't go away.

[Jedi]

I'm not using "fairy tale" in a degrading manner, apologies if it is coming across like that. Like when we were kids and we were told a story, there was a moral at the end. A Learning Story if you will. I see the OT along those lines. Events as they are depicted in the OT are way out of touch of anything resembling possible that I cannot believe it, hence the "fairy tale" moniker similar to a talking wolf and three pigs.

Studying the texts in their original language won't change that perception, so I'm not interested in doing so at this time. I'm not trying to discredit the bible, I jsut question the sources by which it came about. Just because text inside says where it came from doesn't mean its true to me.

And just because that's what I believe now doesn't preclude me from ever changing my mind. I just havent reached that point yet. Until then though, that's just the way it is. I'm almost of the opinion that I'd have to travel back in time myself and see these events with my own two eyes before I'd believe it.

[Cartman]

Originally posted by Monsoon X
I'll sum this novel up, :p by saying that to have a proper study of the bible if you wish to discredit it, it is important have proper study materials, namely a greek and hebrew dictionary. There are plenty available for study. Someone who believes in the word will see "Thou shall not kill" and be cool with it. You do not. However, there seems to be enough reference material for even you to come to the conclusion that the original text says murder. So therefore the validity of the bible and it's infallability remains intact. the very 1st bible is still here???? if so then why not have man read that book straight as it is written without changing the words. but man can't do that the biggest problem with the bible is that it is written by man. not just the one who wrote the chapters but the ones who wrote down a copy, and the next person, etc... until the printing press came out, there is a great chance that what was copied was not the same as it was written. (word for word)




if you think that this arguemnet isn't vaild then try playing a simple game with 10 people write down a sentence and tell one person and then they tell the next so on and so on, I bet when the story gets back to you it will have changed, and not just a word or two but almost a totaly different sentence.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by Cartman
the very 1st bible is still here???? if so then why not have man read that book straight as it is written without changing the words. but man can't do that the biggest problem with the bible is that it is written by man. not just the one who wrote the chapters but the ones who wrote down a copy, and the next person, etc... until the printing press came out, there is a great chance that what was copied was not the same as it was written. (word for word)




if you think that this arguemnet isn't vaild then try playing a simple game with 10 people write down a sentence and tell one person and then they tell the next so on and so on, I bet when the story gets back to you it will have changed, and not just a word or two but almost a totaly different sentence.

Cartman and Chris- I can agree with what you say. I see the logic. But you see, God said in His Bible that His word will stand the test of time. And it has. Call it a fairy tale, call it only a book written by fallable men. God's direction makes it perfect.

It is infallable. And for all these years it has not been proven to be wrong. It has no flaws. It was written by different men, in diffrent times. For the most part, unaware of each other's writings, yet it bears no contradictions. It is smooth, flowing, meshed together to form a perfect record of God and His people. It coincides with History, it has talked of future things, and they have come to pass.

So again I ask you guys...........where are the flaws? Tell us

I think Moondog has said it before but, the Catholic church has most of the original manuscripts or close to them preserved. I might be wrong in that case. But still I ask.......Where are the flaws in the translations?

There may be flaws in man's interpretations but not in the word itself.

[Cartman]

Originally posted by Monsoon X

There may be flaws in man's interpretations but not in the word itself.

you just answered the question. if man interpretation is wrong wouldn't that mean that the bible that we read now is also wrong? or does none of this make any sense?

[MoonDog]

Who here has ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Prior to the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest Old Testament texts were dated from about 980 AD. The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the Old Testament texts of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations.

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by Cartman
you just answered the question. if man interpretation is wrong wouldn't that mean that the bible that we read now is also wrong? or does none of this make any sense?

You're confusing transposing with interpreting. They are two different things. Does any of that make sense?

And the only thing that is interpreted differently is the mechanics of how we feel is the correct way to worship God. (The grey areas which are covered in Romans 14). There are many Christian denominations around, not because they don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God but, because they have different ideas on how to praise Him. Baptize or Sprinkle/ Music or Accapella/ There are many items in the Bible that have no bearing on going to heaven, there are many that do.

[SlowLX]

Originally posted by The Big Matt
And this my friends is how all religous talks usually end...

how do you know it's true...
how do you know it's not true...

:D

And this is where faith comes in, everyone has some sort of faith. Me I have faith there is a God, athiest have faith there is no ultimate being. But in my case when I die, if my faith pays off I'm going to Heaven, if not its not like Ill feel it right? Theres nothing there? In an athiest case if their faith pays off big deal eventually everything will die and noone will remember them, if they're wrong... well Texas heat would start to look very nice comapred to where they'll be.:)

[Cartman]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Who here has ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Prior to the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest Old Testament texts were dated from about 980 AD. The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the Old Testament texts of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations. to use one of yous backers here own saying

keep forgetting that Evolutionary Science is based on a ton of assumptions. ahem......carbon dating.....(where is Epilade?)

so how do we know these dates are correct or just a way to once again prove that man made this up. this is starting to remind me of the story of the morman (sp?) and their prophet.:D

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by Cartman
to use one of yous backers here own saying

keep forgetting that Evolutionary Science is based on a ton of assumptions. ahem......carbon dating.....(where is Epilade?)

so how do we know these dates are correct or just a way to once again prove that man made this up. this is starting to remind me of the story of the morman (sp?) and their prophet.:D

What is odd is that you will believe that a dinosaur bone is 65 million years old but you wont believe that a biblical text is 2,500 years old. :rolleyes: I guess that is because it proves the accuracy of the scribes down through the centuries.

[Cartman]

Originally posted by MoonDog
What is odd is that you will believe that a dinosaur bone is 65 million years old but you wont believe that a biblical text is 2,500 years old. :rolleyes: I guess that is because it proves the accuracy of the scribes down through the centuries.

who said I didn't believe the age, I just used jc own words to shoot down that arguement, just like he does when somebody brings up something about past.:p

[JackFlash19]

Why do people bring up all the millions of species of animals being able to fit on the ark? There were not millions of species of animals, merely types of animals. Someone posted before, he didn't bring along 2 dobermans, 2 basset hounds, 2 short-haired dachsunds, 2 long-haired dachsunds, I mean come on. There may have been thousands of animals on the ark, but they didn't bring every single species in existance on the ark. Obviously the fish survived pretty well, you know, being a flood and all.

I read a study where they believed scientists found the ark in the mountains in the middle east somewhere, Turkey I believe. I think it was on the discovery channel. They had arial photographs of it, and the Turkish government would not let anyone up into the mountains for any reason. If they weren't keeping something from people, they wouldn't have a problem letting people go into the mountains. BTW, the pics were very convincing, and the dimensions seemed correct according to the Bible from what I understand.

[Cartman]

Originally posted by JackFlash19
Why do people bring up all the millions of species of animals being able to fit on the ark? There were not millions of species of animals, merely types of animals. Someone posted before, he didn't bring along 2 dobermans, 2 basset hounds, 2 short-haired dachsunds, 2 long-haired dachsunds, I mean come on. There may have been thousands of animals on the ark, but they didn't bring every single species in existance on the ark. Obviously the fish survived pretty well, you know, being a flood and all.

I read a study where they believed scientists found the ark in the mountains in the middle east somewhere, Turkey I believe. I think it was on the discovery channel. They had arial photographs of it, and the Turkish government would not let anyone up into the mountains for any reason. If they weren't keeping something from people, they wouldn't have a problem letting people go into the mountains. BTW, the pics were very convincing, and the dimensions seemed correct according to the Bible from what I understand.

just like the 1st book of the mormons?:p

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by JackFlash19
Why do people bring up all the millions of species of animals being able to fit on the ark? There were not millions of species of animals, merely types of animals. Someone posted before, he didn't bring along 2 dobermans, 2 basset hounds, 2 short-haired dachsunds, 2 long-haired dachsunds, I mean come on. There may have been thousands of animals on the ark, but they didn't bring every single species in existance on the ark. Obviously the fish survived pretty well, you know, being a flood and all.

I read a study where they believed scientists found the ark in the mountains in the middle east somewhere, Turkey I believe. I think it was on the discovery channel. They had arial photographs of it, and the Turkish government would not let anyone up into the mountains for any reason. If they weren't keeping something from people, they wouldn't have a problem letting people go into the mountains. BTW, the pics were very convincing, and the dimensions seemed correct according to the Bible from what I understand.

So at what point of the taxonomy tree did Noah go? Kingdom, phylum, sub phylum, class, subclass, order, family, genus or subgenus?

The giraffe and human would share maybe 1/2 (down to class) before they branch off. What level should I pick to determine the number of animals on the ark?

[46Tbird]

Originally posted by JackFlash19
Obviously the fish survived pretty well, you know, being a flood and all. Which brings up an interesting point..

Was the water that fell / leaked out fresh or salt? Because saltwater would have killed all the freshwater inhabitants, and freshwater would have killed all the saltwater creatures.

Hmmmm...

[Monsoon X]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Which brings up an interesting point..

Was the water that fell / leaked out fresh or salt? Because saltwater would have killed all the freshwater inhabitants, and freshwater would have killed all the saltwater creatures.

Hmmmm...

check your PMs. ;)

[46Tbird]

LOL! They got an answer for everything, don't they. :)

Some of that I can see - I know there are species that survive in both fresh and saltwater. Then there are some that I doubt - if there was a layer of freshwater on top of the salt water, wouldn't that have made the saltwater cooler due to lack of exposure to sun, and therefore uninhabitable by some of those species? But since "95%" of fossils are marine, that explains that, right? ;)

But it also doesn't answer the question of how these animals coped with radical changes in water pressure (I'm pretty sure that adding 16,000' of depth will change the pressure just a bit, LOL), etc. So it explains how some things "could" have taken place, but - and this is my opinion here - there are too many indications that this simply is not true.

When you start taking the whole of geologic and astronomic evidence, the dates really do converge on a 15byo universe, a 4.5byo earth, and life existing here for 3.85b years.

For every link you have, I have an equal and opposite relink. LOL

http://www.solstation.com/life.htm

[JackFlash19]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
So at what point of the taxonomy tree did Noah go? Kingdom, phylum, sub phylum, class, subclass, order, family, genus or subgenus?

The giraffe and human would share maybe 1/2 (down to class) before they branch off. What level should I pick to determine the number of animals on the ark?

I'm not really sure, but I know that it wasn't that specific.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by JackFlash19
I'm not really sure, but I know that it wasn't that specific.

How do you know? Were you there?

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
So at what point of the taxonomy tree did Noah go? Kingdom, phylum, sub phylum, class, subclass, order, family, genus or subgenus?

The giraffe and human would share maybe 1/2 (down to class) before they branch off. What level should I pick to determine the number of animals on the ark?
I had said once before that God ordered the animals to go to the ark. Noah had nothing to do with gathering them up. He was human, he wouldn't know which ones to get. So God put it into the hearts and minds of each of the animals to go to the ark at the appointed time. I would even bet that there were some that never made it on time. Like maybe the unicorn.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by MoonDog
I had said once before that God ordered the animals to go to the ark. Noah had nothing to do with gathering them up. He was human, he wouldn't know which ones to get. So God put it into the hearts and minds of each of the animals to go to the ark at the appointed time. I would even bet that there were some that never made it on time. Like maybe the unicorn.

You just gave me a non-answer. How do we determine what animals made it to the ark? I never said Noah gathered up the animals. I know the Bible says they came to Noah. I'm assuming God ordered the animals there and that he would have included every animal that he created. So how many are there?

[MoonDog]

Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
You just gave me a non-answer. How do we determine what animals made it to the ark? I never said Noah gathered up the animals. I know the Bible says they came to Noah. I'm assuming God ordered the animals there and that he would have included every animal that he created. So how many are there?

Maybe I did not understand the question. The bible is not clear on how many there were. It doesn't say at what point up the tree were the animals chosen. There obviously wasn't a mule on the ark. But it doesn't say what kind(s) of horse and donkey. All it says is that there were 2 each of the unclean animals and 7 each of the clean animals. It does not break it down any more then that.

[dreddiin]

Heres a little something to read. It talks about how Noah got all the animals on the ark.



Link (http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/flood/april2001.html)

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by dreddiin
Heres a little something to read. It talks about how Noah got all the animals on the ark.



Link (http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/flood/april2001.html)

And where did he get his figures from? What animals were necessarily taken? There are almost 2,000,000 species and some that haven't even be categorized yet.

Did Noah need to take bees? Look up there reproductive habits, it takes more than a single pair to reproduce.

Birds will not reproduce unless they are part of a flock.

What about species that live in caves and are so sensitive to light that they would die upon exposure to light?

Now, more of a philisophical question, I really don't care about the details of Noah's Ark's possibilities.

Do Christians need to validate Noah's Ark because it was a literal fact presented in the Bible and if it wasn't taken for literal fact, there could be other errors in the bibles?

And of course, the whole story of bringing some extra clean animals along with him. I mean, come on. God wants Noah to bring some extra animals, so, when he finally lets the waters subside, Noah can sacrifice these animals so God can smell the sweet aroma of burning animal flesh? He told Noah to save them, now he wants him to sacrifice them? And he smelled so sweet He promised not to flood the earth again?

Genesis 7:2

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.


Genesis 8:20,21

And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.



To top it off, the flood solved nothing. He had to have his Son murdered. But isn't God omniscient? Did he know ahead of time that flooding wouldn't solve the problems?

No, He needed a human sacrifice and replace his Laws with a new system named Christianity.

Please don't take this as bashing, I'm trying to see it from another point of view.

[46Tbird]

Hush! The Bible has never been proven wrong.

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by 46Tbird
Hush! The Bible has never been proven wrong.

It would be hard to disprove a circular reference. God is holy because the Bible said he was and the Bible is the Word of God.

And, of course, we are incapable of fully understanding the motives of God because of the sinful cretons we are. Plus, He has the right to do whatever he wants because we cannot evaluate it based on human standards. Not to mention the complexity added by Satan, who, for some reason, was created by God as well.

[MoonDog]

Whose side are you one man! :( I know Danny just likes to stir the pot a little, but your supposed to be one the good guys. ;)

[01WhiteCobra]

Originally posted by MoonDog
Whose side are you one man! :( I know Danny just likes to stir the pot a little, but your supposed to be one the good guys. ;)

I am. I just have questions. :D