Question about Noah's ark

[Subduction Zone]

You have a point. However, it is not the only underwater city or human architecture found under water that clearly are human in origin.
Even in Europe, the reason we find a lot of amber and tusks from animals still fished out of the seabed between England and Denmark, etc. is because what used to be forest and land is now deep water. So, there are a lot of things to consider.

I just thought to comment on things.

Once again please support your claim with non-woo sites. That the supposed city off Cuba has not been confirmed tells us that it probably was not a city. Claims made without any real evidence that support them, especially after support is demanded are refuted by the inaction of the person that made the claim in the first place.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Good article, worth a read in my opinion...

The Scandal of the LCMS Mind

...I was raised and confirmed LCMS but object to the LCMS position that we must accept the creation story literally to be in good standing with the church and God.

 

[JoshuaTree]

From the article...

The most influential theologian in western Christianity, St. Augustine (354-430), offers contemporary “creationists” a trenchant warning:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brothers when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Conclusion of the article...

Resolution 2-08A will undoubtedly contribute to a false dichotomy that has been present in the ethos of the LCMS since before Dr. Pieper’s day: either one must choose to accept the dominant LCMS interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis as an essential element in the church’s doctrine of creation (“creationism”) or one must leave the LCMS for some other alternative (e.g., atheism, agnosticism, ecclesial inactivity, or some other Christian group). How many people in the past three hundred years have rejected the Christian faith, or have never given it a second thought, because they were told, or they thought, they had to accept a literalistic reading of Genesis (and similar biblical texts with cosmological connections) as an essential element of that faith, when all the physical evidence and rational argument goes against such a literalistic understanding?

 

[Enoch07]

I meant taking the story literally, since it literally describes a metric of cubits of water covering the tops of a mountain which literally cannot be covered by a local flood.

I am sorry but your interpretation is wrong.

Genesis 8:4-5

4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

In the 7 month the ark rested on the mountain in General 8:4

3 months later on the 10 month in Gen 8:5 we're the mountain tops seen.

This means the mountain was not flooded but obscured from vision. It's as simple as that.

But it's been a busy weekend and I don't want to go around this circle again. If you really want to get a 'why the flood is global' argument, you can always go to creationwiki

Why would I do that? I am arguing against global flood. You are defending global flooding. So why are you directing me to others? If you don't believe it's a global flood why are you defending that it's a global flood?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This means the mountain was not flooded but obscured from vision. It's as simple as that.

You're welcome to believe this, but it's not supported by biblical scholarship. Genesis 7:20 clearly says the highest mountains were covered to a specific depth. The next scripture says every living thing on land died, not every thing on land except on the mountains.
You're grasping at straws, imo.

If you don't believe it's a global flood why are you defending that it's a global flood?

I don't believe the flood story is, in any way, historically accurate.that doesn't mean I think the story is describing a local event. I think it was merely the Hebrew take on the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh. Where a boat full of animals also landed on a mountain after a divine flood.

Similarly, I don't believe the earth is a Sumerian style domed flat structure with pillars, but I do believe the bible describes it that way. (But that's for another thread).

 

[JoshuaTree]

Similarly, I don't believe the earth is a Sumerian style domed flat structure with pillars, but I do believe the bible describes it that way. (But that's for another thread).

That would be an interesting (and historically instructive) thread to start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good article, worth a read in my opinion...

The Scandal of the LCMS Mind

...I was raised and confirmed LCMS but object to the LCMS position that we must accept the creation story literally to be in good standing with the church and God.

Good article, worth a read in my opinion...

The Scandal of the LCMS Mind

...I was raised and confirmed LCMS but object to the LCMS position that we must accept the creation story literally to be in good standing with the church and God.

I too was raised Lutheran, but not Missouri synod. At that time it was either ALC or LCA, I don't remember which one, but now they are united as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. They were always more liberal than the Missouri synod and at least my pastor, many years ago, could understand how I could not believe the Noah's Ark Story.

 

[Enoch07]

You're welcome to believe this, but it's not supported by biblical scholarship.

Biblical scholars are not a valid source for biblical knowledge imo. I wipe my buttocks with their opinions.

I don't believe the flood story is, in any way, historically accurate.

Your entitled to that opinion. But you do realize it's not able to be historically accurate because you only see the story only as a global flood, which is a fallacy you admit you don't believe. Can you see how that is a problem logically speaking? Your conclusion is based on a known and acknowledged fallacy. That is bad logic even in a best case scenario.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That would be an interesting (and historically instructive) thread to start.

It is a super interesting subject. If you'd like to sink your teeth into that topic there's a really good page for it over here:
The Flat-Earth Bible.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Biblical scholars are not a valid source for biblical knowledge imo. I wipe my buttocks with their opinions

That's a pretty shallow outlook imo. You don't know the languages involved and you don't have literal centuries of research to place accurate historical and cultural context. I doubt most people today can grasp most of the inferrenes of Victor Hugo without supplementation, let alone ancient Hebrew and Greek authors.
It's like finding a fossil hip and saying you don't need paleontologists to understand what you're looking at.

Your entitled to that opinion. But you do realize it's not able to be historically accurate because you only see the story only as a global flood, which is a fallacy you admit you don't believe. Can you see how that is a problem logically speaking? Your conclusion is based on a known and acknowledged fallacy. That is bad logic even in a best case scenario.

I'm well aware of Mesopotamian floods and have no trouble believing they existed. I'm not and never have said I don't believe it because local floods can't happen.
Rather, I'm not willing to jam subtext into a narrative that conflicts with the narrative in order to make it plausible, which is what you're doing. Starting with a conclusion and adding whatever you think you can to make it work.
It's like watching a star wars fan break the star wars narraive to try and figure out a way for there to be sound in space.

 

[Enoch07]

That's a pretty shallow outlook imo. You don't know the languages involved and you don't have literal centuries of research to place accurate historical and cultural context. I doubt most people today can grasp most of the inferrenes of Victor Hugo without supplementation, let alone ancient Hebrew and Greek authors.
It's like finding a fossil hip and saying you don't need paleontologists to understand what you're looking at.

I have educated myself enough to be able to understand it. So I'm good with it.

I'm well aware of Mesopotamian floods and have no trouble believing they existed. I'm not and never have said I don't believe it because local floods can't happen.
Rather, I'm not willing to jam subtext into a narrative that conflicts with the narrative in order to make it plausible, which is what you're doing. Starting with a conclusion and ading whatever you think you can to make it work.
It's like watching a star wars fan break the star wars narraive to try and figure out a way for there to be sound in space.

That's the problem. You think it is fiction. A lot of other people do not. You can respect that or not. But you will gain no respect by telling me I am wrong, and that I should accept it is fiction. That's not how this works.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I have educated myself enough to be able to understand it. So I'm good with it

If I had a penny for every patient I've seen with their own self diagnosis...

But you will gain no respect by telling me I am wrong, and that I should accept it is fiction

This seems kind of out of left field. Gaining respect? Why is telling you I think you're wrong different than you telling me you think I'm wrong?

 

[Enoch07]

This seems kind of out of left field. Gaining respect? Why is telling you I think you're wrong different than you telling me

Because you are stating an opinion as if it was fact. Here:

It's like watching a star wars fan break the star wars narraive to try and figure out a way for there to be sound in space.

If you consider the Bible a work of fiction that is fine. You are within your rights to have an opinion.

But you can't force others to to accept, your opinion. Which is what you are attempting, even if inadvertently.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Because you are stating an opinion as if it was fact. Here:



If you consider the Bible a work of fiction that is fine. You are within your rights to have an opinion.

But you can't force others to to accept, your opinion. Which is what you are attempting.

How is what I said different from, for example,

I am sorry but your interpretation is wrong

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you are stating an opinion as if it was fact. Here:



If you consider the Bible a work of fiction that is fine. You are within your rights to have an opinion.

But you can't force others to to accept, your opinion. Which is what you are attempting, even if inadvertently.

That parts of the Bible are fictional is much more than an opinion. Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there was no flood of Noah as presented in the Bible.

 

[Enoch07]

How is what I said different from, for example,

I explained in post #134.

I am fine to agree to disagree as well.

 

[Enoch07]

That parts of the Bible are fictional is much more than an opinion. Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there was no flood of Noah as presented in the Bible.

Not rehashing the same argument with a different person. Read the discussion between @ADigitalArtist and myself.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But she really did not explain to you why we know that there was no flood. But if you want to ignore all of the sciences while relying on those same sciences to post here that is fine with me. Ignorance is the only way that believers in the flood can maintain their beliefs.

@Enoch07 is not arguing for a global flood but a local one. And although I don't agree that's what the story is about, science would have very little to say on it other than a large Mesopotamian flood is not unrealistic.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Unlike in Eden, Jesus is King (ruler) of God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44.
So, yes God's theocratic kingdom government will be more stable (permanent).- Revelation 20:6; 5:9-10; 2:10.
God's purpose was already managed in the words of the first prophecy found at Genesis 3:15.
Jesus proved to the that promised ' seed ' or Messiah.
The main theme of Jesus' teaching at Luke 4:43 was: God's Kingdom.
We can note that Jesus stressed to us to pray for: God's Kingdom to come (thy kingdom come).
Jesus did Not instruct to pray to be 'taken away' to the Kingdom, Nor pray to be 'taken up' to the Kingdom, but rather we are to pray for the Kingdom to come. Come and establish Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
That is also why we are all invited to pray the invitation of Revelation 22:20 for Jesus to come.
Come and do away with wickedness. The executional words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of the wicked.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16. The upright will remain on Earth - Proverbs 2:21-22; Psalms 92:7.
We are nearing the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as per Matthew 25:31-33, 37, 40.
Jesus, as Shepherd, will separate the humble figurative ' sheep ' and they can remain alive on Earth, and continue to live on Earth right into the start of calendar Day One of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth.
At that millennial time even 'enemy death' will be No more on Earth as per 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8.
A paradise the Earth will be, right now through eyes of faith this you can see -> Revelation 22:2.
Mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' on Earth for the healing (good health) for earth's nations.

A theocracy that lasts only a thousand years isn't permanent. As far as stable... God set Saran free to deceive most of the people and Jesus goes missing?