Noahs Ark (How can anyone possibly believe the story)

[angellous_evangellous]

It's ironic that they have to lie in order to defend a book that commands them not to lie.

Not so much irony as a half-baked paradox.

An endless cycle of stupidity that sustains itself by eating its own bile.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm wasting away again in stupidville
Looking for something that's sane
Some people say that there's a Christian to blame
But I know
It's my own damn fault

We are all stupid in some ways. We are all ignorant of some things. Even Jimmy Buffet.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm wasting away again in stupidville
Looking for something that's sane
Some people say that there's a Christian to blame
But I know
It's my own damn fault

Now that's genius.:beach:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it might actually go back farther than we think. I just don't know. In Exodus, the Tribes of Israel would have been small, as it was one family- I like to take things like that into consideration.

So you agree, then, that we shouldn't take Exodus literally?

Exodus says that the group of Israelites had 600,000 men. Add in women and children and we'd probably be pushing 2 million.

600,000 men is enough that if they stood shoulder-to-shoulder, they would form a line long enough to stretch across the entire Sinai peninsula. And it took them 40 years to cross it?

 

[ChristineES]

Now that's genius.:beach:

Yeah, we all know you're smart. But you may be lacking in modesty (Just kidding, A.)

 

[ChristineES]

So you agree, then, that we shouldn't take Exodus literally?

Exodus says that the group of Israelites had 600,000 men. Add in women and children and we'd probably be pushing 2 million.

600,000 men is enough that if they stood shoulder-to-shoulder, they would form a line long enough to stretch across the entire Sinai peninsula. And it took them 40 years to cross it?

It could be a parable, that I can believe. But also it could be an exaggeration. People do tend to exaggerate themselves. :help:

 

[Man of Faith]

]

Right back at you. Can't you use your imagination? There were no literal seeds, either, that's a detail. I don't want to debate with my Christian brothers and sisters in a difference of opinion. I don't know everything and I already said that I don't. If you believe it is literal, then you have that right. If I believe that it MAY be a parable, then I have that right, too. I want to end this now.

Okay, I'll stop debating you if that is what you want. However I think it is fine for Christians to debate matters.

 

[ChristineES]

Okay, I'll stop debating you if that is what you want. However I think it is fine for Christians to debate matters.

I think it's all right, too. But not when I don't have any answers, like in this case. We are still siblings in Jesus, despite our differences.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, we all know you're smart. But you may be lacking in modesty (Just kidding, A.)

haha - I just need to be a little self-aggrandizing.

Modesty is my least vulnerable spot.

I'm narcissistic - not arrogant - there's a big difference. I love myself but I'm not unwilling to correct myself to make myself better.

 

[Jose Fly]

So if the flood story is a parable, exactly what is the take-home message? That Biblegod is a mass-murdering tyrant?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if the flood story is a parable, exactly what is the take-home message? That Biblegod is a mass-murdering tyrant?

That's one of them, but I imagine the intended message was more that God considers us (the descendants of Noah) valuable and worth protecting.

 

[outhouse]

That's one of them, but I imagine the intended message was more that God considers us (the descendants of Noah) valuable and worth protecting.

the story based on slight truth is filled with "many" lessons and messages and allegory and parrables, intended to reflect ancient hebrew ideology and morals to and for ancient hebrews.


Im not so sure your thought %100 valid how valuable can we be if he will flush us without so much as a notice.

 

[Dan4reason]

Putting all the species in the world in a boat is ridiculous. The idea that many species traveled from Mt. Ararat to the New World, Australia, and Antartica is also hilarious. Many animals had specilized diets and would not have survived on the ark. Penguins would not have survived in warm weather. There is no geological evidence of a world-wide flood. A flood would have also mixed fresh and salt water killing off all the fresh water fish.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Putting all the species in the world in a boat is ridiculous. The idea that many species traveled from Mt. Ararat to the New World, Australia, and Antartica is also hilarious. Many animals had specilized diets and would not have survived on the ark. Penguins would not have survived in warm weather. There is no geological evidence of a world-wide flood. A flood would have also mixed fresh and salt water killing off all the fresh water fish.

There's really no need to go any further than that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Good point. Not only that, but it goes through Noah.

And this is the point I've been trying to convey. The NT genealogy traces all the way back to a supposed Adam and Eve....and Paul believed sin started with these two. What this means to me is these people believed the stories they heard (the oral tradition) and the written word (their scrolls) gave them the impression this was literally true. If these stories are just that....then where do we draw the line....? Was the Jesus story....just a story or are we to take him as a real person? Even if he was real what about the "stories" written about him? Are they just stories written over time by multiple writers trying to make an ordinary man more that what he represented?.........

 

[InChrist]

Putting all the species in the world in a boat is ridiculous. The idea that many species traveled from Mt. Ararat to the New World, Australia, and Antartica is also hilarious. Many animals had specilized diets and would not have survived on the ark. Penguins would not have survived in warm weather. There is no geological evidence of a world-wide flood. A flood would have also mixed fresh and salt water killing off all the fresh water fish.

It was a huge vessel and there was not the variety of species that there are today. Only two parent kinds were required to be in the ark to reproduce after the flood. For example, two dogs or two cats were all that was necessary to give rise to all dog and cat species that exist today. These also could have been smaller juveniles rather than adult animals, taking up less room. Even now we see impressive migratory behavior of animals, birds, whales, and fish traveling hundreds and even thousands of miles. I find it amazing, but not hilarious. If God directed the animals to migrate to the ark it seems feasible to me that they could get there. You are making assumptions and guessing which animals were on the ark or what conditions they required in your attempt to make it seem ridiculous or impossible, but you do not actually know. It is also possible that animals were stronger and able to tolerate changing conditions, not being as specialized as they are today because of natural selection over time, including the fish. Amphidromous fish (such as salmon) travel between fresh and salt water.

 

[outhouse]

It was a huge vessel and there was not the variety of species that there are today.

science shows us the boat never existed as stated.

4000 years ago had the same species we have today.

Only two parent kinds were required to be in the ark to reproduce after the flood. For example, two dogs or two cats were all that was necessary to give rise to all dog and cat species that exist today.

wrong, there is not enough time for species to evolve into what we have today

It would be great if you had some kind of proof to back up your statement

If God directed the animals to migrate to the ark it seems feasible to me that they could get there.

impossible

how bout all the critters in Australia????

You are making assumptions

we think you are

It is also possible that animals were stronger and able to tolerate changing conditions, not being as specialized as they are today because of natural selection over time

Ok so a few species can go between salt and fresh water. That is a minority and does not speak for the whole population




So what do you say about cultures in china that we have writteb records going back to 6000 years ago and there was no break in their culture when the biblical flood took place??????????????????

is this not all wishfull thinking on your part????

do you think all of science is evil????

do you think all of geology is evil???

do you think all of anthropology is evil???

 

[InChrist]

science shows us the boat never existed as stated.

4000 years ago had the same species we have today.


wrong, there is not enough time for species to evolve into what we have today

I have not heard that science knows with certainty that the ark never existed. How can you be so sure that the same species of today existed 4000 years ago or that there wasn't enough time for them to develop?

impossible

how bout all the critters in Australia????
[/quote

I believe it is likely that before the flood there was one land mass which did not break up into continents until during and/or after the flood. If this were the case then the animals traveled by land.

Ok so a few species can go between salt and fresh water. That is a minority and does not speak for the whole population

But it is possible fish with this ability could have been more common at that time.

So what do you say about cultures in china that we have writteb records going back to 6000 years ago and there was no break in their culture when the biblical flood took place??????????????????

As far as I know the earliest written historical records go back between 4000-maybe 5000 years.

do you think all of science is evil????

do you think all of geology is evil???

do you think all of anthropology is evil???

I never said that I think all science, geology, or anthropology is evil. Maybe some of the conclusions are mistaken, but I don't think these sciences are evil.

 

[gnostic]

So what do you say about cultures in china that we have writteb records going back to 6000 years ago and there was no break in their culture when the biblical flood took place??????????????????

You need not to go as far as China, to show break in culture.

Closer to home, ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia also showed no breaks in their respective civilisations. Sure there have been unrests in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BC, both internally, and externally (for Mesopotamia at least), but none of them indicate a catastrophic natural disaster on the scale in the account given by Genesis, where water even cover the highest mountains.

2340 BCE is supposed date of the Noah's Flood. Old Kingdom Egypt was still striving, though the 5th dynasty (or early 6th dynasty) was admittedly weaker than the 4th dynasty. Had the Flood happened, the Egyptians wouldn't have the necessary manpower to continue to build pyramids in the necropolis of Sakkara.

Had the Flood occurred as given in the Genesis then every cities in Mesopotamia, Levant and Egypt should have been destroyed, leaving the same sediment deposits (in all those cities) that would shown signs of flood, dating to 4100-4400 years ago. IT DOESN'T.

It was a huge vessel and there was not the variety of species that there are today. Only two parent kinds were required to be in the ark to reproduce after the flood. For example, two dogs or two cats were all that was necessary to give rise to all dog and cat species that exist today.

As outhouse pointed out, the species of animals have not change from pre-Flood to post-Flood. You are making unsubstantiated claim, InChrist.

These also could have been smaller juveniles rather than adult animals, taking up less room. Even now we see impressive migratory behavior of animals, birds, whales, and fish traveling hundreds and even thousands of miles. I find it amazing, but not hilarious.

Again, another unsubstantiated claim.

Even should those creature enter the ark young, a lot of animal could not survive the trek out of the mountain range of Ararat. Have you been there?

The harsh condition would make the journey impossible for many of the animals to make out of those regions.

And that's another thing. There should and would be fossil evidences of animals making such exodus out of Ararat.

Apart from the kangaroos and dingoes, many of the marsupials could not possibly the journey to Australia. If the global flood existed, then there would be skeletal remains or fossils of those marsupials should have shown up by now from Ararat, to Central Asia and South East Asia. But clearly these Australian native wildlife don't exist anywhere in Eurasian continent.

And the Ark is no where near large enough to accommodate those humans and those animals. You have to remember that they stayed in the Ark, longer than 40 days or 150 days. They stayed ONE WHOLE YEAR in the ark.

It begin with:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

...and it didn't end, until they had disembark here:

By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

However, the Ark was lodged on the top of Mount Ararat, 5 months when the first rain began in the Flood:

and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

...and they remained over 7 months in the Ark.

And here, is the real problem with the Genesis story (apart from where vivability of the ark, where did the water come and where did all disappear to, and everything else I had mentioned prior to paragraph).

The Genesis stated it raining for 40 days and 40 nights, but the water kept rising even after this period of 40 days, for a total of 150 days:

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

150 days is roughly 5 months. And it stated that water cover even the highest mountains, by 15 cubits, which is about 7.5 metres:

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

The elevation of Mount Ararat is 5,137 metres today, and this elevation has not change much in 10,000 years.

Are you with me so far, InChrist?

Like or not, the reality is the attitude, InChrist. And the Ark was there for 7 months.

At this height, the air would be thinner, making it harder to breath. With so many animals living in such confine space, there wouldn't be enough air for them, including Noah and his family to breath.

Also, it would be very cold, AT ANY TIME OF THE YEAR.

Now unless, God magically provide air, warmth and food (and water) for both humans and animals, most animals can't survive at that attitude, InChrist.

And they certainly wouldn't survive the journey, as well repopulate the whole damn planet.

 

[ninerbuff]

It was a huge vessel and there was not the variety of species that there are today. Only two parent kinds were required to be in the ark to reproduce after the flood. For example, two dogs or two cats were all that was necessary to give rise to all dog and cat species that exist today.

Lol, so the Sabertooth Cats eventually became Morris that cat. And this would take more than 2000 years to happen.

These also could have been smaller juveniles rather than adult animals, taking up less room.

Like dinosaurs.

Even now we see impressive migratory behavior of animals, birds, whales, and fish traveling hundreds and even thousands of miles. I find it amazing, but not hilarious. If God directed the animals to migrate to the ark it seems feasible to me that they could get there. You are making assumptions and guessing which animals were on the ark or what conditions they required in your attempt to make it seem ridiculous or impossible, but you do not actually know. It is also possible that animals were stronger and able to tolerate changing conditions, not being as specialized as they are today because of natural selection over time, including the fish. Amphidromous fish (such as salmon) travel between fresh and salt water.

So how did the carnivores eat fresh meat each day?