Noahs Ark

[URAVIP2ME]

Archaeologists have their point of view. The Bible has its point of view.

There have been comments made saying the Bible says 'such and such' and when a comment is out of line with what the Bible says I have made a statement as to what the Bible is saying. So, if one is going to attack the Bible record at least one should know what is in the Bible's record rather than just going on what it supposedly says.

I've dealt with the Bible's view, and others man's view.
The point of the Flood is that it is a warning example that again there will be divine intervention into mankind's affairs. Just as the upright of Noah's day were spared, thus it will be the same that the wicked will once again be destroyed from the earth.
This is what Scripture teaches that in the future only the upright will be here on earth.
(Psalm 92:7;145:20; Isaiah 11:4; Revelation 19:11,15)
As it is written so it shall be.

 

[Autodidact]

Archaeologists have their point of view. The Bible has its point of view.

Exactly. Which one do you ascribe to? The point of view of archeologists happens to be shared by geologists, hydrologists, biologists, anthropologists, physicists, historians, and every other scientist who has studied the subject. So my question to you is, which do you buy, the Bible, or science?

 

[Evandr]

URA: It's like you're having a conversation with yourself. Yeah, the Bible says all that stuff. It's wrong. Now can we get back to discussing reality?

Here are a few of the problems you have not adequately dealt with:

There's not enough water in the the world to cover it with water.
It's not possible to build a seaworthy vessel out of wood the size of the ark. Your attempts to modify it make the problem worse, not better.
There is no worldwide sedimentary layer just under the earth.
Varves make it clear that there are places on earth that have not been flooded for tens of thousands of years.
Ice core samples corroborate this.
Several of the world's civilizations lived right through the flood.
Either there was a small number of "kinds" on the ark, which should then be evolving into new species rapidly, so rapidly we would observe it happening in real time, OR
there was an unimaginably large number of "kinds" on the ark, necessitating a ginormous ark, many football fields long.

This is not a list of the actual problems, too numerous to name here, just those raised in this thread that you have not dealt with.

Very astute, you are absolutely correct, the observations you site would certainly suggest to the mortal mind that the whole flood thing is a giant Hoax.

I would like to tell you a well known story. (I may have to paraphrase a bit)

Seven blind men came upon an elephant. One found its side and proclaimed that it was a wall they had found. Another came upon its ear and was astonished at the first's deduction knowing that what they had found was a giant Fan. You are both wrong said a third who found a foot, this is most certainly a tree. Yet another finding the tail was convinced it was a rope and the fifth, finding the trunk was sure they had stumbled upon a giant snake, the sixth sat upon the elephants back and proclaimed it a mountain and yet the seventh found a tusk and was sure what it was they had discovered was some great weapon.

All had evidence that seemed to prove that they were correct yet all were wrong simply because they lacked vision and adequate information.

The knowledge and wisdom of man is so severely lacking, when compared to intellect of God, that it cannot be overstated. So, go ahead, trust in yourself not to be missing anything, not to be misinformed, not to be lacking in wisdom and understanding. As for me, I have no such delusions, I don't understand how it all works, I only know that because there is a God it does all fit together and we will someday be shown how it does. Problem is, at that time it will be too late you to go OHHHHHHH, I get it now!, and then ask for another chance to get it right. I’d say you’re the one who is treading on thin ice.

 

[Autodidact]

Very astute, you are absolutely correct, the observations you site would certainly suggest to the mortal mind that the whole flood thing is a giant Hoax.

At least, to a functioning mortal mind.

I would like to tell you a well known story. (I may have to paraphrase a bit)

Seven blind men came upon an elephant. One found its side and proclaimed that it was a wall they had found. Another came upon its ear and was astonished at the first's deduction knowing that what they had found was a giant Fan. You are both wrong said a third who found a foot, this is most certainly a tree. Yet another finding the tail was convinced it was a rope and the fifth, finding the trunk was sure they had stumbled upon a giant snake, the sixth sat upon the elephants back and proclaimed it a mountain and yet the seventh found a tusk and was sure what it was they had discovered was some great weapon.

All had evidence that seemed to prove that they were correct yet all were wrong simply because they lacked vision and adequate information.

But in this case, all seven men, as well as all the other men and women who use the scientific method, have come to the same conclusion: there was never, and could never have been, any such flood. Your story is inapposite.

The knowledge and wisdom of man is so severely lacking, when compared to intellect of God, that it cannot be overstated.

Assuming there is any such thing.

So, go ahead, trust in yourself not to be missing anything, not to be misinformed, not to be lacking in wisdom and understanding.

Oh baloney. I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just accepting the scientific consensus, which you reject.

As for me, I have no such delusions, I don't understand how it all works, I only know that because there is a God it does all fit together and we will someday be shown how it does.

Except that you don't know any such thing; you just believe it.

Problem is, at that time it will be too late you to go OHHHHHHH, I get it now!, and then ask for another chance to get it right. I’d say you’re the one who is treading on thin ice.

Can we get back to the flood subject, rather than your personal religious superstitions?

So if I follow you, your position is that if all of science says one thing, and your reading of the Bible says another, you're going with the Bible, is that right?

 

[Arlanbb]

From Noah's three sons we have Hamitic, Shemitic and Japhetic peoples.

Mankind in general can trace its religious family tree back to ancient Babylon's tower of Babel. What was the world's population at that time?
URAVIP2ME ~ You say that "mankind in General" is traced to Tower of Babel. Please explain to us how the Azteks, who lived in central American about 2000 BC are traced to the Tower of babel. The same goes for the Aborigines in Australia and the Chinese who have a history back 8000 years???
An approximate time for the tower is connected to Peleg (Genesis 10:25;11:9) because in Peleg's time (2269-2030 BC(BCE) the earth was divided.
Please explain to us how you arive at "an approximate time" of 2269-2030BC (BCE) for the tower when all the time frame from the early biblical geneaologies in measuerd from creation known as AM time frame???
Nimrod (son of Noah's son Cush) lived in the latter part of the 3rd millennium BC(BCE) so it is likely the building of the tower of Babel began under his direction.
Please give your proof that Nimrod lived in the 3rd Millennium BC???
After the breakup at the tower of Babel the main body of Cush's descendants migrated southwards toward Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The name of Cush's son Seba is associated with E. Africa.

Japheth produced seven sons (Genesis 10:3-5; 1 Chron 1:6,7) and considered the progenitor of the Aryan or Indo-European branch of the human family.

Noah's son Shem was the progenitor of the Semitic peoples which would include the Hebrews. Shem fathered Arpachshad (Genesis 11:10,11). Shem's death occurred some 13 years after the death of Abraham's wife Sarah in 1881 BC(BCE), and ten years after the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. Jacob was the son of Isaac and Rebekah. Jacob's parents were married 20 years before Jacob was born in 1858 BC(BCE) with Isaac being 60 years old at that time.

So besides other Hebrews, Jacob's 12 Shemitic sons, there were other populations spreading or migrating from Noah's other two sons in different parts of the earth.
How do you explain the DNA evidence (God did make the DNA didn't he??) that shows mankind originated in middle Africa - not Babylon???
It would seem then that there was a 400 year time frame from the time of the tower of Babel's population to the lifetime of Jacob. With the Hebrew population at that time already consisting of more people than Jacob and his sons.

..........................................................

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Very astute, you are absolutely correct, the observations you site would certainly suggest to the mortal mind that the whole flood thing is a giant Hoax.

I would like to tell you a well known story. (I may have to paraphrase a bit)

The problem is.....He's wrong....as we have pointed out so be careful the coattail you ride.

Seven blind men came upon an elephant. One found its side and proclaimed that it was a wall they had found. Another came upon its ear and was astonished at the first's deduction knowing that what they had found was a giant Fan. You are both wrong said a third who found a foot, this is most certainly a tree. Yet another finding the tail was convinced it was a rope and the fifth, finding the trunk was sure they had stumbled upon a giant snake, the sixth sat upon the elephants back and proclaimed it a mountain and yet the seventh found a tusk and was sure what it was they had discovered was some great weapon.

All had evidence that seemed to prove that they were correct yet all were wrong simply because they lacked vision and adequate information.

The knowledge and wisdom of man is so severely lacking, when compared to intellect of God, that it cannot be overstated. So, go ahead, trust in yourself not to be missing anything, not to be misinformed, not to be lacking in wisdom and understanding. As for me, I have no such delusions, I don't understand how it all works, I only know that because there is a God it does all fit together and we will someday be shown how it does. Problem is, at that time it will be too late you to go OHHHHHHH, I get it now!, and then ask for another chance to get it right. I’d say you’re the one who is treading on thin ice.

Drivel......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Archaeologists have their point of view. The Bible has its point of view.

True...but so far you been shown to be wrong when using the bible as your source for proving a WWF. The evidence it to the contrary. Multiple fields of science simply disagree with your assertion and reasoning. On another hand you have been completely unable to answer a few historical questions that refute your biblical account.

There have been comments made saying the Bible says 'such and such' and when a comment is out of line with what the Bible says I have made a statement as to what the Bible is saying. So, if one is going to attack the Bible record at least one should know what is in the Bible's record rather than just going on what it supposedly says.

I've met this challenge and have shown that your assertions are completely wrong. Your bible is an easy read. There's nothing difficult to understand.

I've dealt with the Bible's view, and others man's view.

No you haven't. Now you're being dishonest.

The point of the Flood is that it is a warning example that again there will be divine intervention into mankind's affairs.

It's only metaphor when it can not be substantiated by the natural world. (Sandy...I thought you might like that one..).

 

[freethinker44]

Archaeologists have their point of view. The Bible has its point of view.

There isn't two points of view, there is right and wrong. One position claims something based on superstitious, ignorant ideas, and the other actually digs up the earth and makes theories about what they find.

One view looks for evidence to back up their superstitious beliefs, and one view shapes their theories based on the evidence they find.

It isn't two points of view.

Archeologists = right
bible = wrong

 

[Evandr]

But in this case, all seven men, as well as all the other men and women who use the scientific method, have come to the same conclusion: there was never, and could never have been, any such flood. Your story is inapposite.

OK let me change things - all seven men standing at the elephants side calling to the world that they hasve found the WALL - same difference.

Assuming there is any such thing.

I can assure you there is such a thing - along with literally billions of others throughout history that would say the same thing - in fact, you and yours are, historically speaking, a tiny minority

Oh baloney. I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just accepting the scientific consensus, which you reject.

Hmmm...This is thinking for one's self? Sounds more like someone who is latching onto that which is convenient.

Except that you don't know any such thing; you just believe it.

Amazing - You repudiate my claims by pointing out you belief that I cannot possibly know what I profess to be true yet your very statement is a glaring example of someone claiming something that they could not possibly know.

Can we get back to the flood subject, rather than your personal religious superstitions?

Your frustration is leading you to the tactics of trying to disarm me. How can I talk to someone who demands that I not reference my beliefs.

So if I follow you, your position is that if all of science says one thing, and your reading of the Bible says another, you're going with the Bible, is that right?

Not at all - quite frankly I do not trust the Bible to be as it was originally - I do, however, trust the spirit of personal revelation, as well as ongoing prophetic revelation. These revelations tell me (in a manner that you could not possibly understand) that the flood scenario did actually happen. I just don't need, demand, or care about the details and I certainly do not require them before I am abel and given to know something is true.

 

[Autodidact]

OK let me reduce the numbers - just one man standing at the elephants side calling to the world that he has found the WALL-same difference.

No, now you're even further off. Not one scientist, the consensus of all the scientists, using the scientific method. Do you assert that the scientific method does not work?

I can assure you there is such a thing - along with literally billions of others throughout history that would say the same thing - in fact, you and yours are, historically speaking, a tiny minority

Start a thread. It's irrelevant to thisone.

Hmmm...this is thinking for one's self? Sounds more like someone who is latching onto that which is convienient.

It thinking for myself to recognize that the scientific consensus is the most accurate view currently available. Do you disagree?

Amazing - You refutiate my claims by pointing out you belief that I cannot possibly know what I professw to be true yet your very statement is a glaring example of someone claiming something that they could not possibly know.

No, on the contrary. I know for certain that you cannot possibly know what you assert. It may or may not be true, but you have no way of knowing that.

Your frusteration is leading you to the tacktics of trying to disarm me. How can I talk to someone who demands that I not reference my beliefs.

Can you support your beliefs with evidence? If not, why would we be interested in them?

Not al all - quite frankly I do not trust the Bible to be as it was originally - I do, however, trust the spirit of personal revelation, as well as ongoing prophetic revelation. these revelations tell me (in a manner that you could not possibly understand) that the flood scinerior did actually happen. I just don't need, demand, or care about the details and I certainly do not require them before I believe something to be true.

So if I follow you, you're saying that you have had a "personal revelation" that there was a world wide flood, and you base your belief on that even if it contradicts the consensus of scientific knowledge from every scientific discipline that has investigated any aspect of it, even if it would violate the laws of physics? Is that correct?

Hello, blind man; it's an elephant. We know that because all the scientists who have investigated that have come to the same conclusion.

btw, have you checked out the current "mass delusion" thread?

 

[Autodidact]

Evandr: Here's a link to a modern Mormon scholar who does not believe there was a global flood.

The earliest Abraham books are supposed to be autobiographies, and the story told from his point of view makes perfectly good sense. So with Noah in the ark. From where he was, "the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) was covered with water as far as he could see; after things had quieted down for 150 days and the ark ground to a halt, it was still three months before he could see any mountaintops. But what were conditions in other parts of the world? If Noah knew that, he would not have sent forth messenger birds to explore. The flood as he described it is what he saw of it.

(quoting Dr. Hugh Nibley)

 

[Evandr]

No, now you're even further off. Not one scientist, the consensus of all the scientists, using the scientific method. Do you assert that the scientific method does not work? [/font][/color]

We are going in circles here so have a good day - Finis

 

[Autodidact]

Another one bites the dust. We take it Evandr is unable to defend any of his assertions. And the following problems, at a minimum, remain outstanding:

There's not enough water in the the world to cover it with water.
It's not possible to build a seaworthy vessel out of wood the size of the ark. Your attempts to modify it make the problem worse, not better.
There is no worldwide sedimentary layer just under the earth.
Varves make it clear that there are places on earth that have not been flooded for tens of thousands of years.
Ice core samples corroborate this.
Several of the world's civilizations lived right through the flood.
Either there was a small number of "kinds" on the ark, which should then be evolving into new species rapidly, so rapidly we would observe it happening in real time, OR
there was an unimaginably large number of "kinds" on the ark, necessitating a ginormous ark, many football fields long.

 

[Evandr]

Evandr: Here's a link to a modern Mormon scholar who does not believe there was a global flood.
(quoting Dr. Hugh Nibley)

I read the entire article and it was very insightful. I will have to consider it although it does not invalidate that personal revelation, (no, not thunder and lightning or a voice of thunder, only a still small voice that has penetrated to the depth of my very soul) makes me understand that a massive flood did happen, although, thanks to your efforts, I may have to reevaluate the conditions of the flood.

The verbiage of the Bible indicates plainly that it covered the whole earth (I admit that I do not trust the Bible as a standalone volume without personal revelation to sort out the errors, - fortunately I do not have to depend on that because Joseph Smith has already, I believe from direct revelation from God, corrected the important, if not all, the errors of the Bible) and I still believe that, as do many prominent LDS scholars such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (each having been an apostle and one having been a prophet), all life on the earth was destroyed by a flood of water, a flood that covered the whole earth. There are some looming questions that I could pursue but that is very distracting and quite unnecessary to the goals established for me to obtain, nor do they undermine the doctrine and dogma of the church. It is simply a point of invigorating debate.

Here’s an idea, maybe the flood did not cover the whole earth all at once, scripture never got into that much detail, but was a moving flood that wiped out everything in its path while it moved from place to place eventually covering the whole earth in its effect or perhaps the one writing the story failed to make clear that the flood WAS localized and wiped out all those who had a knowledge of the Gospel and were perverting it and that the animals Noah saved were only those indigenous to the area that the flood would cover. Interesting questions indeed.

NOTE: please try to understand that revelation comes in many forms and degrees of intensity. That being said there is one aspect of it that is always the same. That is that the intent of the revelation, once received, cannot be denied even though the person receiving it cannot completely understand how they know something or fathom the breadth and width of what they are given, only that they are given to know what they are intended to understand in a way that is undeniable. It has been my experience that when the spirit of revelation (AKA the Holy Ghost) reveals something to my spirit it becomes part of who I am and I cannot turn away from it, nor would I.

As I have stated in previous posts, the details of the flood I do not know only that the consequences of it were as stated in the Bible (correct translation implied) and that is what is important to understand. I simply must to accept spiritually revealed truth and avoid cluttering my intellect with the persuit of unimportant details (although it does make for great debate) for to do anything else would be akin to denying my own existence.

I am in your debt.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

When you finally make yourself clear, the truth of your beliefs may be finally exposed.

What are you unclear about?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Let's start a thread; it's irrelevant to this one, which is about a worldwide flood.

that's funny, the OP stated, "How did they fit a pair of Brontosaurus on the ark? Where do these lifeforms fit into the Bible? I've not seen a reference." Others like you made it about a worldwide flood.

 

[Autodidact]

sandy: Don't you know by now I have given up talking to you?

 

[Autodidact]

I read the entire article and it was very insightful. I will have to consider it although it does not invalidate that personal revelation, (no, not thunder and lightning or a voice of thunder, only a still small voice that has penetrated to the depth of my very soul) makes me understand that a massive flood did happen, although, thanks to your efforts, I may have to reevaluate the conditions of the flood.

The verbiage of the Bible indicates plainly that it covered the whole earth (I admit that I do not trust the Bible as a standalone volume without personal revelation to sort out the errors, - fortunately I do not have to depend on that because Joseph Smith has already, I believe from direct revelation from God, corrected the important, if not all, the errors of the Bible) and I still believe that, as do many prominent LDS scholars such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie (each having been an apostle and one having been a prophet), all life on the earth was destroyed by a flood of water, a flood that covered the whole earth. There are some looming questions that I could pursue but that is very distracting and quite unnecessary to the goals established for me to obtain, nor do they undermine the doctrine and dogma of the church. It is simply a point of invigorating debate.

Here’s an idea, maybe the flood did not cover the whole earth all at once, scripture never got into that much detail, but was a moving flood that wiped out everything in its path while it moved from place to place eventually covering the whole earth in its effect or perhaps the one writing the story failed to make clear that the flood WAS localized and wiped out all those who had a knowledge of the Gospel and were perverting it and that the animals Noah saved were only those indigenous to the area that the flood would cover. Interesting questions indeed.

NOTE: please try to understand that revelation comes in many forms and degrees of intensity. That being said there is one aspect of it that is always the same. That is that the intent of the revelation, once received, cannot be denied even though the person receiving it cannot completely understand how they know something or fathom the breadth and width of what they are given, only that they are given to know what they are intended to understand in a way that is undeniable. It has been my experience that when the spirit of revelation (AKA the Holy Ghost) reveals something to my spirit it becomes part of who I am and I cannot turn away from it, nor would I.

As I have stated in previous posts, the details of the flood I do not know only that the consequences of it were as stated in the Bible (correct translation implied) and that is what is important to understand. I simply must to accept spiritually revealed truth and avoid cluttering my intellect with the persuit of unimportant details (although it does make for great debate) for to do anything else would be akin to denying my own existence.

I am in your debt.

Well I'm unclear whether you are interesting in disputing any further. My question would be, in figuring this out, what role will science play for you, and what role personal revelation? What role Mormon doctrine or prophetic revelation? What do you do when the latter two differ sharply from the first? To what extent is science a useful tool to learn about the natural world?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So basically you can't define it and your whole understanding comes from the bible which in itself does not define it. I've given you the definition accurately. Not only were they accurate but they were taken from a bible dictionary.

The people and most likely the writers equated the firmament as a solid layer supporting/containing water. As I said earlier they most likely looked to the sky and beyond (above) the clouds they saw a blue layer equating it to water. That's not how it works.




Then you know very little of the bible. When I or If I give a definition of the bible word or even the quran I won't simply turn to Websters. I will quote a bible dictionary or even a lexicon. The definitions are biblically accurate.




They didn't know. That's my point. Neither do you...it seems. If all you can do is regurgitate scripture without giving a meaning then what's the point of any dialogue with you? Firmament means "heaven" and is defined as (raqiya -, an extended solid surface or flat expanse). Heaven, for the most part is the same as firmament....According to your bible Gen. 1:8. All it means is (Sky). So when your god caused the windows of heaven (The Sky) to open....All it meant was .......IT RAINED........No big mystery to us but to them, those who thought the world was flat, had no understanding as to where water from the sky came from...that's what they believed.




And you're wrong. Your bible says no such thing....if you simply want to use your bible for your understanding of heaven. According to YOUR bible heaven is INSIDE the universe. According to Gen 1:14 your god created a light in heaven to divide the day and night and to define the seasons. At this point we should know that it simply means (sky). And at this point we should know by simply reading the text that it was not referring to a place "outside the universe"...




This is exactly what I said. It RAINED.....but the Firmament (Heaven/Sky) does not hold enough water to cover the entire earth.

Wow, how screwed up is this. I'll try and make as clear and as simple as possible. All verses are from the KJV.

" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen1:1 That happened on the first day (Gen 1:5).
There was no space which is the firmament and which is what we call the universe space and it's contents. This was created on the 2nd day, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Gen 1:6-8

How do we know this was space."And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth..." Gen 1:14-17 That is unless you think the sun the moon and the stars are in the sky.

From these verses it is obvious that at the end of the first day the universe was not as we know it, which I stated, that the firmament (space) separated the waters from above (Heaven) from the waters below Earth (which I have to presume that included the sky since there is no reference to it's separate creation yet it appears in verse 21 as "the open firmament of heaven."

The waters for the flood did not come from earth the came from the waters that were above the firmament (Gen 7:11).

I think your misperception come from using Bible dictionaries instead of the Bible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy: Don't you know by now I have given up talking to you?

No you haven't, dear, you've just refused to address the issues I present.