Noah's Ark and Other Survivors

[LuisDantas]

I guess I just don't think it is reasonable to read Genesis 19 as implying that the daughters of Lot believed that they had no means of finding other human communities they could integrate with.

One can read it as meaning that some sort of curse was following them, I suppose. Not a natural reading to me, but one might choose to take it.

That however begs the question: if they truly believe themselves cursed, why even bother attempting to survive or to preserve their line? For that matter, are we to assume that they believe themselves at the same time spared by God yet also cursed by him?

I don't think that makes much sense, personally.

 

[Tumah]

I guess I just don't think it is reasonable to read Genesis 19 as implying that the daughters of Lot believed that they had no means of finding other human communities they could integrate with.

One can read it as meaning that some sort of curse was following them, I suppose. Not a natural reading to me, but one might choose to take it.

That however begs the question: if they truly believe themselves cursed, why even bother attempting to survive or to preserve their line? For that matter, are we to assume that they believe themselves at the same time spared by God yet also cursed by him?

I don't think that makes much sense, personally.

I didn't mean to imply that they thought themselves cursed. I meant they thought the earth was getting destroyed and they were the only ones left.

Also, can you put some more passion into your stance? Tell me I'm an idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about. Or something.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't mean to imply that they thought themselves cursed. I meant they thought the earth was getting destroyed and they were the only ones left.

If they did, the line about preserving their lineage becomes even odder, don't you think?

For that matter, I'm not clear on how having their world destroyed by God himself does not count as a curse.

 

[Tumah]

If they did, the line about preserving their lineage becomes even odder, don't you think?

For that matter, I'm not clear on how having their world destroyed by God himself does not count as a curse.

Maybe there is an issue with the translation you are using and the version I am using? The last three words translate to, "and we will make live, from our father, seed." I understand that in context they are saying, through [us and] our father, humanity will perpetuate. Not that they had some special interest in preserving their father's lineage.

And I guess it could be considered a curse, as much as the flood might be.

 

[LuisDantas]

The meaning is constant enough, but how does it make any sense if they truly believe God is ruining the world they live in?

 

[Tumah]

The meaning is constant enough, but how does it make any sense if they truly believe God is ruining the world they live in?

I understand that they see themselves as the new cast in the Noah story. They lived in Sodom. They probably thought G-d got angry at everyone again, but since He promised not to flood the world, now he is using fire and whatnot. But they were the lone survivors having escaped to the cave to continue humanity like Noah.

 

[RabbiO]

I guess I just don't think it is reasonable to read Genesis 19 as implying that the daughters of Lot believed that they had no means of finding other human communities they could integrate with.....

ואין איש בארץ לבוא אלינו
The plain meaning of the Hebrew is "There is no man on the earth (in the land)....
There's no qualifier as to the man, it's a blanket "no man"

If the verse had the meaning you want to give to it, a meaning that I find forced, it could have more logically had the daughters saying that there is no appropriate man, no man of their community or no man of their tribe or no man of their clan or no man of their tradition or...... Well, you get the picture.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The Flood account in any literal translation does not differ significantly from any other translation. If you doubt this just compare the accounts in various translations.

Any difference in language can change meaning, so I don't agree with you about this. As Tumah mentioned, a single semi-colon can change the meaning dramatically.

I do not have a Flood theory. I believe what the Bible says, "that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; *and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water.." (2 Peter 3:5,6)

I think if we lined you up with 100 other Christians of your same denomination and questioned all of you about the details of your flood belief, you would disagree in major ways. Each person has his own theory.

It's why I don't try to counter the Flood Story. If I do, one person will say that it was only 'the known world' while another will claim it was the whole globe. One will declare that 'macro-evolution' repopulated the earth while another will insist that every plant and animal was on the ark. And such as that.

 

[Pegg]

It's so hard to find any literalists anymore, but then again maybe I just been looking for steak in a garden. I hope to see people who take Noah's Ark literally, or people who don't but care to play the advocate, post in this thread.

Among other questions, this one interests me the most:

How could there have been no other survivors? There had to be a good number of people on the world at the time, enough at least to P.O the big man to the point of remaking humanity.

I just don't see how out of all of those people, nobody else found an object that will float temporarily and in time to make a more reliable surface. Smaller boats must've existed, what happened to them? Wouldn't they have given at least just one out of the other thousands of people enough time to build a much more floatable surface or perhaps hop aboard the ark?

Perhaps this is why there are so many sinful agents in the world, because some descendants of Cain survived to further the genealogy?

the earth was flooded for an entire year....even if some found something to float on, they could not have survived more then a few weeks without food.

Besides, it was Gods will to destroy every living thing....so If he willed to do that, then there is no way anything would have survived.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

If I take it to literal meaning.
If a God could have created the whole universe, he could have easily flooded the earth, killed off all animal/human life, drained it, and replaced the earth back to normal, leaving no trace that it happened, which is why there is no evidence of a world wide flood now.

If I take it as a story, parable told by those who wrote it, it just gives meaning, as all of Jesus's parables did.

I have very convincing arguments that I find convincing to myself, that something exists and something I call the Holy Ghost, entered my body.
The Bible though, I have several issues with.
So, for now I simply accept that it was the Holy Ghost that entered my body.

 

[nazz]

If I take it to literal meaning.
If a God could have created the whole universe, he could have easily flooded the earth, killed off all animal/human life, drained it, and replaced the earth back to normal, leaving no trace that it happened, which is why there is no evidence of a world wide flood now.

But why would God engage in that deception?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

But why would God engage in that deception?

I feel its part of his deal on Faith.
If he was to appear right now, Faith pretty much goes right out the window.
That is my only explanation.
I tend to believe the flood never happened though, but am not positive about that either.

 

[suzy smith]

I feel its part of his deal on Faith.
.

God gives me a brain. I use my God given brain to examine the evidence for the Biblical flood. My God given brain shows me that it is scientifically impossible to the point of absurd.
Something does not add up here me thinks.:sarcastic

 

[LuisDantas]

ואין איש בארץ לבוא אלינו
The plain meaning of the Hebrew is "There is no man on the earth (in the land)....
There's no qualifier as to the man, it's a blanket "no man"

If the verse had the meaning you want to give to it, a meaning that I find forced, it could have more logically had the daughters saying that there is no appropriate man, no man of their community or no man of their tribe or no man of their clan or no man of their tradition or...... Well, you get the picture.

I beg to differ. It is far more forced to have them literally believe there is no way to find other people on Earth.

Besides, doesn't Genesis 19:31 end up with "as is the custom all over the earth"? Don't you find that an odd thing to say if they truly expect to be the sole survivors of humanity?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

God gives me a brain. I use my God given brain to examine the evidence for the Biblical flood. My God given brain shows me that it is scientifically impossible to the point of absurd.
Something does not add up here me thinks.:sarcastic

If he were to give you 100% evidence of his existence, there would be no need for Faith.
Seems pretty logical to me.
However, the closer get to God, the more he has revealed to me of his existence.

 

[RabbiO]

I beg to differ. It is far more forced to have them literally believe there is no way to find other people on Earth.

Besides, doesn't Genesis 19:31 end up with "as is the custom all over the earth"? Don't you find that an odd thing to say if they truly expect to be the sole survivors of humanity?

Imagine a tourist from Japan, who has had some education in English, having lunch in restaurant in, say, Philadelphia who overhears the following conversation between two Americans -

A1 - I meant to phone my elderly uncle.
A2 - The one who's a dairy farmer and you keep telling me is so careless?
A1 - The same, but before I could call he kicked the bucket.
A2 - Sorry to hear that, but it's no use crying over spilled milk.

I suspect that the tourist would probably, absent familiarity with idiomatic phrases, completely misunderstand the conversation overheard, even though that misunderstanding appears to make perfect sense.

K'derech kol ha aretz which you have given as "as is the custom all over the earth" is such a phrase meaning "the ways things are usually done" or put another way "the normal manner." We could get into a debate as to what is meant by the normal manner, but I do not see that as being productive.

This verse, besides being the subject of midrash, has been the subject of commentary. Most, but not all, of the commentary agrees with the midrash. I am not saying, therefore, that your position is totally without support, but in my own considered opinion the verse is best understood as I have set forth.

We'll just to respectfully agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

Peter

 

[work in progress]

If he were to give you 100% evidence of his existence, there would be no need for Faith.
Seems pretty logical to me.
However, the closer get to God, the more he has revealed to me of his existence.

Sort of makes the quest to find God a self-reinforcing, non-falsifiable process: first you need to have faith...then you will find evidence...to have faith...to find evidence etc.

This is why Christian philosopher - Soren Kierkegaard saw a conflict between faith and reason. If you have to act solely on faith, you have to be willing to make a plunge into the absurd - where faith would guide you to do the opposite of what would seem logical (Kierkegaard used the example of the test of Abraham's faith in his explanation); while if you have the evidence...as some Christian fundamentalist apologists claim to have for a rigid, literal interpretation of Creation and the Flood, then you don't need faith to believe, nor can you prove that you are acting on faith, rather than just guided by reasoning through the evidence.

 

[nazz]

I feel its part of his deal on Faith.
If he was to appear right now, Faith pretty much goes right out the window.
That is my only explanation.
I tend to believe the flood never happened though, but am not positive about that either.

I can't understand a deity that would require one have faith that contradicts evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's so hard to find any literalists anymore, but then again maybe I just been looking for steak in a garden. I hope to see people who take Noah's Ark literally, or people who don't but care to play the advocate, post in this thread.

Among other questions, this one interests me the most:

How could there have been no other survivors? There had to be a good number of people on the world at the time, enough at least to P.O the big man to the point of remaking humanity.

The giants (Nephilim) survived. The very same ones God wanted to destroy.

Numbers 13:32–33 NAS,
So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we had gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

I just don't see how out of all of those people, nobody else found an object that will float temporarily and in time to make a more reliable surface. Smaller boats must've existed, what happened to them? Wouldn't they have given at least just one out of the other thousands of people enough time to build a much more floatable surface or perhaps hop aboard the ark?

Hard to survive for 370 days without food or fresh water though.

Perhaps this is why there are so many sinful agents in the world, because some descendants of Cain survived to further the genealogy?

See nephilim above.

(Of course I don't believe the story to be literally true or historical. Just an FYI.)

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Sort of makes the quest to find God a self-reinforcing, non-falsifiable process: first you need to have faith...then you will find evidence...to have faith...to find evidence etc.

This is why Christian philosopher - Soren Kierkegaard saw a conflict between faith and reason. If you have to act solely on faith, you have to be willing to make a plunge into the absurd - where faith would guide you to do the opposite of what would seem logical (Kierkegaard used the example of the test of Abraham's faith in his explanation); while if you have the evidence...as some Christian fundamentalist apologists claim to have for a rigid, literal interpretation of Creation and the Flood, then you don't need faith to believe, nor can you prove that you are acting on faith, rather than just guided by reasoning through the evidence.

Huh? you're saying a whole lot of nothing.
Quoting one guy doesn't really mean too much now does it?
Who is he, speaker for the world?
What difference does it make to you anyway?
You dont believe in God?
Good, but you cant think for millions and millions of people.
worry about your life, let everyone else worry theirs :yes:

I can't understand a deity that would require one have faith that contradicts evidence.

Well, you don't believe in God, so you have no Faith to begin with.
So how can you understand?