Noah's Ark

Quote:
"We believe it was the other way around, and that these stories that come from the Babylonians and Assyrians only HELP to testify to the validity of scripture. I'm sorry, but I can't accept these wild assumptions that the Bible writers pillaged the stories from them. Sounds far fetched and out of line."Your reasoning here is flawed. It sounds out of line to you because in your timeline the writers of the Bible came first. However, there are mountains of evidence to dispute this. When we point to our evidence the only thing you have to counter it is "Well, it says this in this book I've got."You've also misunderstood my original post. Yes, the Old Testament doesn't refer to anything within it's pages as being anything other than literal truth and the New Testament does use that tool. That does not "prove" that the Old Testament is fact, or that God was gracious enough to let us in on the secret.In a later post, you write that "There is nothing to querrel about".If you want to believe in the Flood. No one will try to stop you. If you want to teach the Flood as fact in your Temples / Churches / Mosques more power to you.When you try to bring those beliefs into our schools, be ready to fight.Further, here are some contradictions in the Bible that I hope you can explain:Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighborShould we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make themAre we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the fatherShall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

quote:

---

On my reading the Bible is quite clear, that the second coming would occur within the lifetimes of the apostles. Yet, as best I can tell, it didn't happen.

---

Luke 17:26 is talking about Christ's second coming, not is first coming as a man here on this earth. The Prophets Isaiah and John clearly speak how the world will be "destroyed" once more by pestilences, earthquakes, and the brightness of His coming, and then later again by the "lake of fire" at the end of the thousand years when the saints were reigning with Christ. The world was destroyed by water, and the Lord's promise will be fulfilled that never again will the earth be destroyed by water. After the thousand years, fire will rain down from heaven and the entire earth will be one molten mass of fire, known as the "lake of fire". Clearly Luke 17:26 cannot be referring to Christ's innitial coming, as Christ has already come and is telling His disciples of His future coming. If you had taken just 5 min. of your time to read the whole chapter, you would have easily discerned this. Christ's first coming is not in the least "as in the days of Noah", as Christ did not come to destroy, but to save and die for our sins. There can be no comparison. The only comparison to the days of Noah is Christ's future coming. So no, it hasn't happened yet, because it is still in the future. Upon reading my Bible, I see nowhere that says Christ would come in the lifetime of the apostles.

quote:

---

This was said in a pre-scientific era. Jesus was making the common assumptions of his time.
It makes no sense to say that Jesus came to us as a man, and was tempted as a man, and yet to assume that he was omniscient as a man. If he was omniscient in his presence on earth, then he was not a man and could not have been tempted as a man. If he was not omniscient, then he would have made many of the pre-scientific assumptions that were common at that time.

---

Divinity was clothed in humanity, and this is entirely possible. Our finite human minds may not be able to comprehend it, but I have faith that God knows what he's talking about if He tells us that, I trust it was so. Christ was tempted to use his divinity, of which he had power to use. He could call down not only the power from the angels to snuff anyone out of existence, but He could perform it by His own divinity given to him by the Father. Sadly, you are putting your trust in man regarding science rather than God. Man is a finite mortal individual who comes to wrong conclusions all the time. This God does not do, and therefore one can trust in Him entirely.

Science is based on evidence, not on trust.You are putting your trust in men - the men who were authors of the scriptures.

quote:

---

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor

---

Thou salt not commit murder....unless otherwise commanded by God Himself. This commandment means an act as such should never be committed without God's command to do so. If you are in the military, and your commanding officer says "not to fire a single shot at the enemy", what does that mean? It means just that. However, does this mean that he cannot command you to do it later? If your commanding officer finally says "fire", they you must obey orders. [quote] Thou shalt not steal...unless otherwise commanded to do so by God Himself. God knows what's best, even though it may not always "seem" to make sense. Additionally, you're forgetting the fact that the Israelites at this time had been overtaxed, overworked, and drained from all their resources into slavery. To spoil the Egyptians is to take back what was theirs.

quote:

---

Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them

---

What foolishness. How can you even dare compare the Ark of the Covenant to a graven image? It's not even near the same thing! Nobody worshipped the Ark of the Covenant, or the cheribums on the Ark! You don't know how silly that sounds. But once again, you're forgetting that outlined rules are always eclipsed by a command of God. No one is to make anything that is in the likeness of heaven, earth, or water outside of the command of God to do so. The Ark of the Covenant was in honor and glory of God, not any other God.

quote:

---

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)

---

This in itself is a huge study which I do not have time to delve into. My father, who was once a minister, has preached on the correct understanding on Faith and Works and how they must work hand-in-hand. Eph. 2:8 and 9 is stating a man is saved through faith, and not of works. In other words, works absolutely mean nothing if the heart is not right with God. One must have faith and believe, and his "works" will show it. Works alone reveal nothing, however, one that does have true faith will perform the works because He loves God. James 2:24 puts it into perspective: "and not by faith only". It's very simple really...by his works he is justified, and not by faith only. Right there it is telling you that faith and works must work together.

quote:

---

Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)

---

You just ain't readin' the whole verse buddy. Let me requote Matthew 5:16 so that you may read it in it's full perspective:Matthew 5:15 --Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.So who is the glory going to? The Father in Heaven, not yourself. This is not to be kept secret. Matt. 6:1-4 is talking about your self, not God's glory. Matthew 6:2 sums it up: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. So you see, these alms are for the glory of man, not God.

quote:

---

Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)

---

Yes, that's what you call "the mystery of Hebrew expression" to emphasize and express the great lengths God had to take to try and save His people. Of course, it might do you better if you would look up the original Hebrew words "repent" and "repented" for all the verses and see if they are all the exact same in Hebrew. Sometimes it's hard to translate certain words in English if they are non-existent in English vocabulary. I'll have to look into it, but these are mighty poor and minor reasons to discredit the entire Word of God. Small little seemingly "inconsistencies" like these I believe were designed to test people, for unbelievers will always find room and reason to disbelieve. It's God's way of weeding out those have no respect for His name.

quote:

---

Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father

---

I'm sorry, but I do not read in Exodus 20:5 that the children will be punished for their parents sins. All that is saying is that the children who do likewise as their parents will also be punished. Evil parents heavily influence their children to do evil also, yet it is no excuse, as there have been many children (even a young girl that I know) who's parents do many bad deeds but the children choose to follow God and not follow in the evil footsteps of their parents. However, those children who choose to do likewise, God will also punish. The parents will also be responsible for helping to lead their children astray.

quote:

---

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

---

Yes, when most people call another "fool", it's usually in the wrong spirit, and they are in danger (note: "danger" does not equate damnation) of being lost. For man to call another "fool" is to pass judgement on another, and our mortal bodies have no authority to do as such. Jesus, however, had every right to call people fools and that they are blind if He discerned them to be thus. He could read the thoughts and intents of the heart. He knew exactly where each individual was at--which explains why He knew what Judas would do---betray Him. Jesus was in NO danger in calling another "fool" and "blind". He knew it to be fact.

quote:

---

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

---

The expression is also used that "if you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father, for both the Father and Son are one". Jacob was wrestling with a man was probably either the Son of God or an Angel of God, and in so doing was a way of "seeing God face to face". In other words, he saw his guilt as never before and became truly converted at this point. That verse in no way implies he saw God face to face literally. There needn't be any contradiction between those two verses---but only if you make one.

quote:

---

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"

---

It says "he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King" in the 6th hour, but 6th hour of what day? I'd have to figure out the context. Not to mention that it doesn't even say He was crucified in the sixth hour in the second verses. You do realize that even if these were small glitchy errors on part of the writers, it does not negate inspiration? The message of salvation is still there.

quote:

---

Science is based on evidence, not on trust.

---

Science as in itself is good. However, man continuelly interprets science differently. The data of science is outputted by man who did the research, therefore a great degree of trust is going to the researcher "OF" the science.

quote:

---

You are putting your trust in men - the men who were authors of the scriptures.

---

I'm not putting my trust in men, but in God who moved through these men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what we have."Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."--2 Peter 1:20-21

Can I just give a gentle reminder to have a look at the topic title?Can we focus on 'Noah's Ark'.It only takes a minute to propose another thread to discuss any other topic that comes up.AdminBrian.

God can't do his own dirty work? He doesn't have a host of angels that he can dispatch? He can't turn people into salt? Why would he give this rule only to void it?Also, who are you to say that I don't hear God command me to kill? I hear him command me to kill all people who's first names begin with the letter C. Since I've got God's say so, I guess it's all right. God can't simply create or destroy? If the egyptians have a cow and God wants me to have it, can't he just create a cow out of nothingness in my backyard and vanish the Egyptians' cow?I hear God tell me to steal all the stuff I can from people who's first names begin with the letter J... So, you accept that there are in fact other Gods? Yet if you live a horrible life and recant on your deathbed, you're on the expressway to Heaven. Interesting that you bring up original language. My understanding of the old Greek was that the word for maiden (meaning young woman) and the word for virgin were the same, even though the terms have obvious differences.Just as the above quote is a mistranslation, isn't it reasonable to assume that the "virgin Mary" is the "maiden Mary". After all, she and Joseph had been married how long, and still hadn't consumated the relationship? Did Joseph have ED? The children who do likewise or who WOULD do likewise? Children all over the world died as a result of the Flood, no doubt. All of them were wicked and beyond redemption? All the children is Egypt were beyond redemption? Their future was preordained and known, and therefore they lacked free will? Wait just a minute here. There can be NO small glitchy errors. Every word, every translation, even in versions of the Bible that contradict each other, every single word is in and of itself directly put down by the power of God.To even suggest that there is a typo calls into question the entire text.If YEC want to hold the Bible up as some infallible historical document which trumps empirical data and observation, then they can not also claim that there are "small typos".The YEC have to hold that all Biblical texts (even those that directly contradict each other) and all translations (even those that directly contradict each other) are all 100% correct.Sorry, but that's your starting point, you can't change it now.

You are ignoring the self-correction that goes on in science.

I believe that we all understand that thanks to Luis Pasteur we no longer believe in spontaneous generation.This means that everything on this earth that is alive, was either created by a higher power, or through evolution (which requires spontaneous generation).I know that many viruses can lay dormant for extended periods of time without any problems. I also know that some hardier bacteria can form a capsule that can protect them. I also know that many paramecium can exist in very hardy stages.However there are still a majority of organisms that need a specific habitat to exist. Like AIDs can only exist in a living organism. If the virus is left in open water or left to dry, it will be destroyed (it is actually quite fragile).These ideas in place I would like someone to explain how every disease that is here today if there was a great flood that wiped out all life, save Noah's animals.It seems as though many of the animals would need to have been carrying disease, parasites, fleas and etc... How could so many disease ridden animals live in confinement for 40 days and live long enough to reproduce?My next question goes to those creationists who believe that the number of animals that Noah had to save was reduced because there are only so many thousands of kinds of animals. Without some sort of mutationary mechanism (akin to evolution), how could they become separate species that can no longer reproduce viable offspring?Next is the question of genetic diversity. We all know that we shouldn't marry our siblings because it could lead to deformed children. This in mind, how could so many species successfully (in essence) have incestuous relations without massive consequences as seen in the blood lines of royalty in Europe (the hemophilia).

a small inconcistency in the noah's ark theory, well... a big one i guess you should say is that 2 individuals (say each animal on the ark) cannont generate populations representitive of today's. genitic replication tends to have issues with when related animals reproduce an extended amount of times (inbreeding in layman's terms). in nature, animals avoid (sometimes with hostility) sexual or territorial encounters with kin. not to mention if repeated inbreeding events took place, the resulting offspring would be less fit for survival. from studies, the entire genitic process works to enhance and increase varibility, while preserving a given set of genes, aka species propagation.any one needing proof of this, take to rats, and breed them in sucessive generations without introducing any new rats to the population. see what happens.this concept also pokes holes in the adam and eve story. 2 humans could not produce the genetic variation required to sustain humans today. most offspring would become too far inbred and die within a few generations.

Hi, Strickjh, glad to have you drop in.Some of your post is on topic here but most of it is not. Please try to keep each post to discussing the topic of the thread. If we don't do this the conversation becomes very hard to follow indeed.The links in my signiture may offer you some helpful information.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Remember that Adam and Eve were created perfect, and thus it is difficult to say what would be the result of such inbreeding. One would think that at the very least there were no recessive abnormailites to worry about.I think the Noah situation is much more important for this point. Noah and his kin were not perfect...

"Noah was perfect in His generations.""The Heavenly beings descending and took wives of all they chose."Noah being genetically perfect in His Generations.After the fall, and changes within the earth, life headed down hill real fast.

Hi CD, Do you have a reference for this?Brian.

if they were perfect why'd they eat the stinkin apple? i never got how people would be so willing to worship a god who created such a flawed, violent, messed up art project. i mean if god were perfect, and we were created in gods image, why are we such big screw ups? if he made us, and we suck so bad, doesnt that make him suck that bad too?