# Noah's ark questions



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.

Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.

Thanks.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



 Thats kinda like did adam and eve have belly buttons.....


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



Dude, can't you see.  For believers (at least the majority of what I've seen), nothing has to make logical sense when it comes to the Bible.  As a matter of fact they think reason is an anathema to faith.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Dude, can't you see. For believers (at least the majority of what I've seen), nothing has to make logical sense when it comes to the Bible. As a matter of fact they think reason is an anathema to faith.


 

Ambush, I am not really attacking you, but you sure do spend a lot of time here not contributing anything.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Dude, can't you see.  For believers (at least the majority of what I've seen), nothing has to make logical sense when it comes to the Bible.  As a matter of fact they think reason is an anathema to faith.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?


Yup...really believe it....just as it is written in the Bible.  Kinda like the 6 24-hour day creation



			
				Six million dollar ham said:
			
		

> If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



Why is it not feasible.  I mean, Al Gore says it is going to happen again because of global warming.  If Al Gore says it can happen, surely it is feasible.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments? Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe? What did buzzards eat? How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board? Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way? I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part? If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.


 
What animals were taken, and how did they fit?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

or 

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf

As far as freshwater fish, or plants for that matter...

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4108/


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

farmasis said:


> What animals were taken, and how did they fit?
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
> 
> ...



Quite possibly the worst apologetics work I have ever read. It is amazing how intellectually dishonest some Christians will be in order to maintain their fundamentalist views. These ridiculous explanations of Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, dinosaurs living alongside humans, etc. are quickly moving from fundamentalist to just plain embarrassing. I urge all thinking Christians to take a good look at more moderate and liberal Christian stances surrounding these issues and see if they sound somewhat more logical.


----------



## Buckmoses (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Quite possibly the worst apologetics work I have ever read. It is amazing how intellectually dishonest some Christians will be in order to maintain their fundamentalist views. These ridiculous explanations of Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, dinosaurs living alongside humans, etc. are quickly moving from fundamentalist to just plain embarrassing. I urge all thinking Christians to take a good look at more moderate and liberal Christian stances surrounding these issues and see if they sound somewhat more logical.



Uh oh!!!  Looks like we got us a Thinker...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



I guess you'd have to believe that God could hang things in orbit, and He tells the oceans, they can only come this far..(at full tide). The moon that He hung in the heavens controls the tide...just by chance ya think?

As far as the flood I believe that's what happened to the dinasours.

Believing is a matter of faith. Since I wasn't there I have no first hand knowledge, but then that applies to most things. I can't see oxygen, I can't take flight, I can't swim in the ocean depths and I can't climb a mountain on hinds feet.

In other words, God is ultimatly in control of everything. 
How is everything so balanced? Plants put off oxygen to give us oxygen and vice versa. What holds back the ocean? How is a perfect human made in the womb...is it just per chance?

There is no way I can't believe that something greater than me, poofed me into existance.

But what do I know....LOL...

 He knew me before I was in the womb...


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 6, 2009)

Did a great flood happen?  Indeed it did, every culture and every religion that has existed on earth has a flood story. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.  In more modern times accounts have been written about the flood not only in the Bible but in Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the Koran, any book of history has one.

Of course, all these cultures existed at different times than Noah, so was there one great flood or many?  I think there was one, and the story is so great showing God purifying the earth with water, that all cultures adopted the story into their religious writings.

Of course, as with many other parts of the Bible Noah's story is not without its contradictions.  Not even considering all the questions about how the animals got to Noah in time, that physically the ark could not hold them, and would break apart if it ever floated and the other 20 odd other ramifications - just look at the story in the Bible concerning the animals.

To start with in Genesis 6 - 17 God tells Noah to take two of every living thing of every sort and they shall be male and female.

But then in the next chapter, seven, God changes his mind and tells Noah to take only the clean beasts three by sevens the male and the female, and of beasts that are not clean by two; the male and his female.

But then in Chapter seven verse 9, when the rains start, the animals went into the ark only two by two.

I mean what happened here?  First poor Noah gets the animals two by two, then when God changes his mind Noah has to go out and get more clean animals, but then when Noah loads the clean animals up he  loads them two by two not three males and seven females.  I mean is Noah not doing what God said or is this yet another place where you have to ignore some of the "Word of God" to make sense of things.

And then there is another odd ball situation in Noah's story.  At the end God decides (Genesis 8 - 21 KJV) that he will never again smite everything living , as I have done.  Does not that kind of mess up the Revelations thing and all that Rapture stuff when Jesus comes back for the second time? Or is that one of those things the faithful should not think about to much?

Sure I think the flood happened, and since it was written about 1500 years earlier than when Noah lived in the The Epic of Gilgamesh I do not think the flood actually happened to Noah, but since it is such a wonderful story so full of great lessons to be learned the Ancient Jews told the story as happening to one of their own which eventually was written in the Old Testament of the Bible.

So basically you have to take the Noah story as what it is, an epic tale that has been transmitted orally from culture to culture, religion to religion, and generation to generation and adapted to fit within each.


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 6, 2009)

"As far as the flood I believe that's what happened to the dinosaurs."

According to those that time things in the Bible, Noah's flood happened about 4000 years ago - the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.  

Anyway, if dinosaurs lived at the time of Noah's flood then according to God's request, Noah would have taken them on the ark, either two by two or three by seven,  according to which directive of God that Noah followed. So the dinosaurs would have lived through the flood.


----------



## Jighead (Jan 6, 2009)

I have no problem believing the story of Noah and the flood. And yes, I believe in this by faith and not understanding.Does the bible instruct me not to lean on my own understanding?God is above all reasoning and intellect, otherwise how could he be God. I don't know all the answers or why things happened the way they did in the bible, I don't pretend I have God figured out. After all, if I had God figured out, then He isn't that mighty and powerful, and I am bigger and smarter than Him.Those who think they know so much, know very little. But the nonbelievers who come on here with their views and sarcastic questions are not as troubling to me as the Christians who come on here saying we should compromise the Word, and believe what the world tells us. At least atheists hold to their beliefs and stand their ground(which to me is more of a religion).But if I am going to be a Christian, I am going to stand firm on the Word, and not compromise and be liberal in my thoughts as some suggest. I don't won't to be part of the church that Christ warned about in Rev. 3:14-19. That is my take, so take your shots with your "intellect" and sarcasism. Just proves my point.


----------



## PWalls (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> liberal Christian



Those two words should never be used together. That usage should be considered oxymoron. Thank you for clarifying your "belief" for me. The other thread you started kinda hinted. This one seals the deal.

I will be quite happy to be a fundamental and conservative Christian when it comes to God's Word.

BTW, this is not a "slam" on you or intended as an insult. I just find it helpful when debating/discussing to have in my mind an idea of someone else's beliefs so I know what perspective they are coming from. Some on here are Atheists, Catholics, Reformed, etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Ambush, I am not really attacking you, but you sure do spend a lot of time here not contributing anything.



Are you serious?  I'm relatively new here as well and I asked many of the same questions.  Right now I'm giving him the benefit of what I've learned.   I come back here because some interesting things happen.  Like that new post on teaching all religions in schools.  Very interesting.  This forum is also pretty amusing.


----------



## PWalls (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.



Yes, I believe that it was a real and feasible occurrence. Why or How? I don't really care or concern myself with it. I am quite happy to know and believe and have faith in the fact that the God of the universe can do and accomplish whatever He wants. The "details" are unimportant. God gave us minds to reason with. I agree with that. But, He also granted us the ability to understand that sometimes we do not have to have all the answers. It is times like that we must and should fall back on "faith".


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Those two words should never be used together. That usage should be considered oxymoron. Thank you for clarifying your "belief" for me. The other thread you started kinda hinted. This one seals the deal.
> 
> I will be quite happy to be a fundamental and conservative Christian when it comes to God's Word.
> 
> BTW, this is not a "slam" on you or intended as an insult. I just find it helpful when debating/discussing to have in my mind an idea of someone else's beliefs so I know what perspective they are coming from. Some on here are Atheists, Catholics, Reformed, etc.




I think the term "liberal christian" might be a little more difficult to pigeon hole than "fundamental conservative christian".


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Those two words should never be used together. That usage should be considered oxymoron.



Hmmm...kinda like peaceful muslim


----------



## Big10point (Jan 6, 2009)

For me the #1 thing that proves Noah and the flood is Jesus and His comments...

Matthew 24:38-41
38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

and

Luke 17:26-35
 26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

Thats all the proof that I need to believe...  If the flood didn't happen then why did Jesus say that it did...?  God cannot lie...


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Are you serious?  I'm relatively new here as well and I asked many of the same questions.  Right now I'm giving him the benefit of what I've learned.   I come back here because some interesting things happen.  Like that new post on teaching all religions in schools.  Very interesting.  This forum is also pretty amusing.



Good point.  I appreciate you contributing that to me.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



Take notice of your assumptions in your question (not an attack here, this is an observation). 

1. Animals were predators/prey. 
2. The water sufficient to cover the earth was from rainfall only. 
3. Noah took adult species. 
4. There is no God. 

I included that 4th because it answers your question about how Noah managed to get the animals on the ark. It cannot be assumed it was done without divine intervention.

-five


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

Jighead said:


> I have no problem believing the story of Noah and the flood. And yes, I believe in this by faith and not understanding.Does the bible instruct me not to lean on my own understanding?God is above all reasoning and intellect, otherwise how could he be God. I don't know all the answers or why things happened the way they did in the bible, I don't pretend I have God figured out.



From this I see that you accept concepts by no less than two different mechanisms:
1)observation/logic
2)faith

Is this correct?  If so, I'd wager otherwise inexplicable/unbelievable things are accepted by faith.  Does that apply only to the Bible or also to nonreligious events?  Say, when a 7 year old explains how grape juice got on the carpet....do you go with logic or faith?



Jighead said:


> After all, if I had God figured out, then He isn't that mighty and powerful, and I am bigger and smarter than Him.Those who think they know so much, know very little. But the nonbelievers who come on here with their views and sarcastic questions are not as troubling to me as the Christians who come on here saying we should compromise the Word, and believe what the world tells us. At least atheists hold to their beliefs and stand their ground(which to me is more of a religion).But if I am going to be a Christian, I am going to stand firm on the Word, and not compromise and be liberal in my thoughts as some suggest. I don't won't to be part of the church that Christ warned about in Rev. 3:14-19. That is my take, so take your shots with your "intellect" and sarcasism. Just proves my point.





Boy are you ever testy.  I hope Jesus forgives you for that.  Look up what "atheism" is....it's not a religion.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Yes, I believe that it was a real and feasible occurrence. Why or How? I don't really care or concern myself with it. I am quite happy to know and believe and have faith in the fact that the God of the universe can do and accomplish whatever He wants. The "details" are unimportant. God gave us minds to reason with. I agree with that. But, He also granted us the ability to understand that sometimes we do not have to have all the answers. It is times like that we must and should fall back on "faith".



Brother, I was stirrup to stirrup with you til you hit that last stretch and I pulled back real hard. I'll admit to being pretty much in sync with what you've posted elsewhere and here also....at least, until that last sentence.

Faith never was intended to "plug the holes" we find in science. Let science plug its own holes. In fact, faith does not need science at all. Faith is not the "fall back" position. To rely on science and then to bridge the science "gaps" with "faith" is not faith at all. 

The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual book about relationships; our relationship with God and with our fellow man. As long as we go toe to toe trying to reconcile apples with oranges, we will certainly be frustrated. 

I have never found any science book that can tell me anything about the nature of God, the purpose for which I was created, or my spiritual destination when my body goes inanimate and cold. Science is restricted to the temporal world in which we physically live. It seeks to understand by measuring, quantifying, and conducting experiments that are repeatable. It is completely inadequate in spiritual matters. No scientists can give a conclusive explanation of God in scientific terms.

Science is the wrong tool to understand God!

We will never fully understand Him on a spiritual level. His ways will always be higher than ours, but He has determined to have a relationship with those who will come to Him in a specific way, through Jesus, the Christ.

Compared to that, who would care about the age of a rock or whether the first humans had umbilici? 

Spiritually, we are to walk by faith, not science.


Grace and peace to you and yours


----------



## farmasis (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Are you serious? I'm relatively new here as well and I asked many of the same questions. Right now I'm giving him the benefit of what I've learned. I come back here because some interesting things happen. Like that new post on teaching all religions in schools. Very interesting. This forum is also pretty amusing.


 
It just seems like you just like to throw rabbit punches in without contributing to discussions.

Just an observation.

Carry on.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Quite possibly the worst apologetics work I have ever read. It is amazing how intellectually dishonest some Christians will be in order to maintain their fundamentalist views. These ridiculous explanations of Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, dinosaurs living alongside humans, etc. are quickly moving from fundamentalist to just plain embarrassing. I urge all thinking Christians to take a good look at more moderate and liberal Christian stances surrounding these issues and see if they sound somewhat more logical.


 
Example?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Take notice of your assumptions in your question (not an attack here, this is an observation).
> 
> 1. Animals were predators/prey.
> 2. The water sufficient to cover the earth was from rainfall only.
> ...



Go right ahead.  Why wasn't divine intervention used to just kill everybody?  Nobody just so happens to not see the bus coming when they walk out....god makes them walk out in front of the bus.  God just wanted something memorable that people would talk about forever, like a flood, to teach a lesson?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> From this I see that you accept concepts by no less than two different mechanisms:
> 1)observation/logic
> 2)faith
> 
> Is this correct?  If so, I'd wager otherwise inexplicable/unbelievable things are accepted by faith.  Does that apply only to the Bible or also to nonreligious events?  Say, when a 7 year old explains how grape juice got on the carpet....do you go with logic or faith?



Don't you think that depends on the explanation?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Brother, I was stirrup to stirrup with you til you hit that last stretch and I pulled back real hard. I'll admit to being pretty much in sync with what you've posted elsewhere and here also....at least, until that last sentence.
> 
> Faith never was intended to "plug the holes" we find in science. Let science plug its own holes. In fact, faith does not need science at all. Faith is not the "fall back" position. To rely on science and then to bridge the science "gaps" with "faith" is not faith at all.
> 
> ...



Excellent post.  Well done.  If I may ask...you appear to be a Christian.  Do you believe the Old Testament?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

farmasis said:


> It just seems like you just like to throw rabbit punches in without contributing to discussions.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Carry on.



See above.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Don't you think that depends on the explanation?



No.  The point is implied that a kid's explanation of how grape juice got on the carpet would involve a cat lifting the window and an eagle flying in to attack the cat and knocking the grape juice over before it magically sails around the corner and onto the carpet.  

So faced with such an explanation....one not too unlike Noah's ark....how do ya decide which mechanism for understanding gets used?  I'd guess you'd use logic for not believing the grape juice story and faith to accept Noah's ark.  How does one discern?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Go right ahead.  Why wasn't divine intervention used to just kill everybody?



According to the Bible, it (divine intervention) was, except for Noah & Co.




Six million dollar ham said:


> Nobody just so happens to not see the bus coming when they walk out....god makes them walk out in front of the bus.



Where did this come from? Not sure if it was the bus or the double negative that tripped me up.





Six million dollar ham said:


> God just wanted something memorable that people would talk about forever, like a flood, to teach a lesson?



Yep, and we are still referencing it in 2009.

Peace.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Excellent post.  Well done.  If I may ask...you appear to be a Christian.  Do you believe the Old Testament?



I am, and I do take the OT as a matter of faith.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Go right ahead.  Why wasn't divine intervention used to just kill everybody?  Nobody just so happens to not see the bus coming when they walk out....god makes them walk out in front of the bus.  God just wanted something memorable that people would talk about forever, like a flood, to teach a lesson?



Well, I am not sure what your definition of "everybody" is, but a global judgment that destroyed all of mankind save 8...is just about everybody. It's quite a lot of people, not to mention animals, birds, et. 

If your asking why God chose to use a flood and just didn't cause the death of everyone, I would be speculating as to God's ways. He did not destroy the entire human race because of His promise to bring redemption to mankind through Christ. Therefore, the human race must survive. God showed extraordinary mercy and grace toward Noah and his family. 

And this serves as an example to you, me, and everyone else. God told Noah of the destruction 120 years before it happened. This means God gave the world time to repent of their sin, which obviously they did not. Noah warned the world and was a preacher of righteousness. 

God has also foretold another day of destruction, not with water, but with fire. He is also calling mankind to repent and enter the "ark" that is, Jesus Christ, to be saved from the destruction that is coming. If you will repent of of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved. If you will not, then you will be destroyed. 

As for God making someone walk out in front of a bus, et. I am not sure what you mean. Please explain. 

-five


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> No.  The point is implied that a kid's explanation of how grape juice got on the carpet would involve a cat lifting the window and an eagle flying in to attack the cat and knocking the grape juice over before it magically sails around the corner and onto the carpet.
> 
> So faced with such an explanation....one not too unlike Noah's ark....how do ya decide which mechanism for understanding gets used?  I'd guess you'd use logic for not believing the grape juice story and faith to accept Noah's ark.  How does one discern?



I am not so wise as to direct others in discernment. Both are spiritual matters. 

For me, faith in the Bible confirms the truth of the Noah/Ark account. Admittedly, not very plausible in a natural world to a natural observer, but I am not a natural observer. I am a spiritual observer with spiritual information. This is not a science book, remember. 

As for the 7 year old, it is also a matter of the heart. Does the explanation damage the relationship I have with the child? How does the child understand the connection between his explanation and our changed relationship? 

Looks like a teachable moment to me. The physical reality of stained carpet is what it is. The physical solution is to clean it. I believe we would clean it together. 

But, it is just grape juice and just carpet. There is much more at stake here.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Well, I am not sure what your definition of "everybody" is, but a global judgment that destroyed all of mankind save 8...is just about everybody. It's quite a lot of people, not to mention animals, birds, et.



Everybody = nonboaters at the time of the great flood.

Dang, people who gladly believe the Noah's ark story suddenly splitting hairs is unexpected!



fivesolas said:


> If your asking why God chose to use a flood and just didn't cause the death of everyone, I would be speculating as to God's ways. He did not destroy the entire human race because of His promise to bring redemption to mankind through Christ. Therefore, the human race must survive. God showed extraordinary mercy and grace toward Noah and his family.



Nope.  I mean the ones who died in the flood.  Not sure why a flood was necessary.  Seems kind of sloppy.




fivesolas said:


> As for God making someone walk out in front of a bus, et. I am not sure what you mean. Please explain.
> 
> -five



Just confirming that God kills everybody (meaning everybody period) sooner or later.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Everybody = nonboaters at the time of the great flood.
> 
> Dang, people who gladly believe the Noah's ark story suddenly splitting hairs is unexpected!
> 
> ...




Ok, so little to no points are being made here, but I think you have your questions answered. If you wish to pass judgment on God's ways, that's between you and Him. If He chose to judge the wicked by destroying them with butterflies, I would not question His method, personally. I do fear and respect the Almighty. 

Why do you think people die? Seems you assume death has always been a part of human existance....


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

gtparts said:


> For me, faith in the Bible confirms the truth of the Noah/Ark account. Admittedly, not very plausible in a natural world to a natural observer, but I am not a natural observer. I am a spiritual observer with spiritual information. This is not a science book, remember.



Okay.  So when it comes to matters of the bible, you're _able _to completely unplug all scientific thought processes?

FWIW - your answers are the best in this thread.  Some folks get mighty uncomfortable with such questions.  The gamut of responses is vast.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Ok, so little to no points are being made here,



Precisely.  That started when you answered with "I would be questioning God's ways".  Everything since is fluff and splitting hairs to avoid answering the questions I've asked.



fivesolas said:


> Why do you think people die? Seems you assume death has always been a part of human existance....



Why?  The parts wear out.  Death is indeed a part of existence....the final act.  Does it not happen or something?  I suppose I don't understand your last statement.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Okay.  So when it comes to matters of the bible, you're _able _to completely unplug all scientific thought processes?
> 
> FWIW - your answers are the best in this thread.  Some folks get mighty uncomfortable with such questions.  The gamut of responses is vast.



Actually, when science comes into play, I "plug" it in. When it is not relevant, I go "green" and cut the power to that accessory.  For me, faith trumps science. Otherwise, I might as well worship science and science has never saved anyone's soul.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Actually, when science comes into play, I "plug" it in.



Alright.  Topic is meteorology.  Where did all the rain come from?


----------



## PWalls (Jan 6, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Brother, I was stirrup to stirrup with you til you hit that last stretch and I pulled back real hard. I'll admit to being pretty much in sync with what you've posted elsewhere and here also....at least, until that last sentence.
> 
> Faith never was intended to "plug the holes" we find in science. Let science plug its own holes. In fact, faith does not need science at all. Faith is not the "fall back" position. To rely on science and then to bridge the science "gaps" with "faith" is not faith at all.
> 
> ...




Then I gave you the wrong impression. Sorry about that.

I do not go to Science first and then fall back on Faith.

If I gave that impression or you inferred that from my post, then again I apologize. That is not me.


What I was trying to get across is that there are a lot of people that want to use Science to explain God and Bible events. There are a lot of people who want to say that something could not have happened in the Bible because Science says it couldn't happen. I am not one of those. I have Faith in the Word. If God's Word says there was a flood, then there was a flood and my understanding of the particulars or how it happened is not necessary for my Faith to be strong in it.

Did I clarify that a little better?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Then I gave you the wrong impression. Sorry about that.
> 
> I do not go to Science first and then fall back on Faith.
> 
> ...



Oh, I was pretty sure of where you stood on that one, but sometimes I hear the starting gun and can't resist the urge to run. Old horses are like that , ya know.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Precisely.  That started when you answered with "I would be questioning God's ways".  Everything since is fluff and splitting hairs to avoid answering the questions I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  The parts wear out.  Death is indeed a part of existence....the final act.  Does it not happen or something?  I suppose I don't understand your last statement.



To your first, part...how have your questions been unanswered or avoided by me? I have answered all your questions. What answers are you looking for? You seem too intelligent to only accept answers that agree with what you already believe. 

Concerning death, it is not a natural part of human existence. Why do the parts wear out? A non-biblical worldview, and the popular non-biblical worldview, suggests that death is natural, normal, and even necessary to the preservation of mankind--a.k.a, darwinian theory. 

Darwinian social theory has been the philosophy of atheism, communism, marxism, and racism causing untold suffering and death to people. 

The biblical worldview shows death to be the consequence, even judgment, against sin. The wages of sin is death. But the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. 

When God created mankind (Adam and Eve) they were created pefect and uncorrupted. In other words, their parts didn't wear out. Death, destruction, decay, et. entered the world through sin.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Alright.  Topic is meteorology.  Where did all the rain come from?



Actually, better worded, "where did all the water come from." 

It certainly rained...in Genesis 7 we read:

ï»¿11ï»¿ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on ï»¿kthat day all ï»¿the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the ï»¿windows of heaven were opened. ï»¿12ï»¿ ï»¿And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. 

The fountains of deep were broken up, AND it rained upon the earth. 

The water came from under the earth, most likely both land and the sea floor. If you look at the rock layers in the rock record, there are volcanic rocks interspersed between layers. This "breaking up" could have involved volcanic eruptions. (I find it interested that 70 percent of what comes out of a volcano is water, in the form of steam.)

One model was created by several scientists to this regard...



> "In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.”
> 
> S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, D.R. Humphreys, A.A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K.P. Wise, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History,” Proc. Third ICC, 1994, pp. 609-621.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Alright.  Topic is meteorology.  Where did all the rain come from?




Here below is an excerpt from David R.Maidment's Handbook of Hydrology:

    "The origin of the earth's water is not known exactly,
    but the most likely source is out grassing of water vapor from the earth's interior as part of the extrusion of igneous material in volcanoes and ocean upwellings.
    Once released from high temperature and pressure of the earth's core, this juvenile water condenses because of the peculiar fact that the prevailing temperature and pressure at the earth's surface are just right to permit water to exist as liquid."

Why did I give a science resource first?

Simply because the cosmological explanation in the Bible is quite sufficient to satisfy my curiosity  on this matter. 

Science does not nor cannot categorically refute the origin as presented in the Bible. If anything, some (perhaps most) scientific efforts in this regard support what the Bible says, except for the direct causative agent.....God.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Dude, can't you see.  For believers (at least the majority of what I've seen), nothing has to make logical sense when it comes to the Bible.  As a matter of fact they think reason is an anathema to faith.



you are correct: nothing in the Bible *HAS* to make sense because God has the power to do the supernatural.

However, you are incorrect in thinking that reason is the anathema to faith.  Jesus Christ's teaching were very logical and most of them were very common sense-oriented.  God is always able to trump our earthly logic, but he doesn't always choose to do so.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 6, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Ambush, I am not really attacking you, but you sure do spend a lot of time here not contributing anything.



AMEN! But he IS contributing - for Satan.

Sorry,dawg2 - I couldn't resist that one.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Example?



jason4445 gave a nice example, so I'm going to use his words:



> Did a great flood happen? Indeed it did, every culture and every religion that has existed on earth has a flood story. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood. In more modern times accounts have been written about the flood not only in the Bible but in Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the Koran, any book of history has one.
> 
> Of course, all these cultures existed at different times than Noah, so was there one great flood or many? I think there was one, and the story is so great showing God purifying the earth with water, that all cultures adopted the story into their religious writings.
> 
> ...





> Darwinian social theory has been the philosophy of atheism, communism, marxism, and racism causing untold suffering and death to people.



And religion hasn't? The key word is "social". Darwinian social theory. Darwinian social theory is not evil in and of itself, it's the implementations (by Hitler, Stalin, etc) that have been evil.

Take a look at some of these quotes:



> I have Faith in the Word. If God's Word says there was a flood, then there was a flood and my understanding of the particulars or how it happened is not necessary for my Faith to be strong in it.





> Actually, when science comes into play, I "plug" it in. When it is not relevant, I go "green" and cut the power to that accessory. For me, faith trumps science. Otherwise, I might as well worship science and science has never saved anyone's soul.





> If He chose to judge the wicked by destroying them with butterflies, I would not question His method, personally. I do fear and respect the Almighty.





> For me, faith in the Bible confirms the truth of the Noah/Ark account. Admittedly, not very plausible in a natural world to a natural observer, but I am not a natural observer. I am a spiritual observer with spiritual information. This is not a science book, remember.





> I do take the OT as a matter of faith.





> Yes, I believe that it was a real and feasible occurrence. Why or How? I don't really care or concern myself with it. I am quite happy to know and believe and have faith in the fact that the God of the universe can do and accomplish whatever He wants. The "details" are unimportant. God gave us minds to reason with. I agree with that. But, He also granted us the ability to understand that sometimes we do not have to have all the answers. It is times like that we must and should fall back on "faith".



And finally,



> I have no problem believing the story of Noah and the flood. And yes, I believe in this by faith and not understanding.Does the bible instruct me not to lean on my own understanding?God is above all reasoning and intellect, otherwise how could he be God. I don't know all the answers or why things happened the way they did in the bible, I don't pretend I have God figured out. After all, if I had God figured out, then He isn't that mighty and powerful, and I am bigger and smarter than Him.Those who think they know so much, know very little.



After taking into account the things which you have said in the quotes above, take a look at 1 Peter 3:15:

15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

How do you reconcile your reliance on faith and not on reason? The Bible says to "be ready always to give an answer" for people who ask for a "*reason* of the hope that is in you." 

This reminds me of a quote that Richard Dawkins once said:

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Some of you seem to be invoking faith when you either don't have the answer, don't want to look for the answer, or simply do not care about knowing the answer.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> jason4445 gave a nice example, so I'm going to use his words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The key word is HOPE. I assume you know what hope we are told to give a reason for - the hope that is in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for us,and the promise He gave to those that believe that we will be with Him one glad day.It's called the Gospel by many,and it IS our hope.It has nothing to do with "proving" anything to anybody,just for the sake of those whose only desire is to argue.
As so often happens on this forum,this thread has gone  far off topic and has deteriorated into another un-winnable argument about God and His power.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> After taking into account the things which you have said in the quotes above, take a look at 1 Peter 3:15:
> 
> 15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
> 
> ...



The word _reason_ can mean " to give explanation" 

A spiritual explanation is all that a Christian is asked to provide in scripture. As yet, I have not seen anyone ask for the explanation of my hope. Since you seem so hung-up on logic, there are some things you will not be able to accept as truth, as spiritual truth is only discerned by those who seek in spirit and in truth. You seek to argue against what you cannot understand while you are in contention with God. If and when it becomes important to you to know the spiritual truth, God will see you get what you need, but not necessarily what you want.


----------



## PWalls (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Some of you seem to be invoking faith when you either don't have the answer, don't want to look for the answer, or simply do not care about knowing the answer.



No. Some of us understand that we don't have to actually have the answer. Some of us understand that Faith is sufficient.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

rangerdave said:


> It has nothing to do with "proving" anything to anybody,just for the sake of those whose only desire is to argue.



I would think that many are not asking you to give explanations just so they can argue. Some are genuinely interested in your answers and how you explain certain things in the Bible. If someone asks you about something specific that happened in the Bible (ie Noah's ark), are you content with simply telling that person that you must accept it on faith because not everything in the Bible is perfectly logical in our minds?


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I would think that many are not asking you to give explanations just so they can argue. Some are genuinely interested in your answers and how you explain certain things in the Bible. If someone asks you about something specific that happened in the Bible (ie Noah's ark), are you content with simply telling that person that you must accept it on faith because not everything in the Bible is perfectly logical in our minds?



I'm sure there are some that are here for the reasons you state,sir.I didn't tell anyone that they "must accept" anything,although others did,and they are exactly right.However,if you had been here more than a few days,you would know that some are here only to argue.I know who they are,as does God and most others who have been here any length of time.Those who are only here to cause trouble are commonly referred to as "trollers."


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> If someone asks you about something specific that happened in the Bible (ie Noah's ark), are you content with simply telling that person that you must accept it on faith because not everything in the Bible is perfectly logical in our minds?



Actually, yes I am content with that.

It doesn't make logical sense that a woman can have a baby but never have sex.  It also doesn't make sense that a "man" can die and his death be the redemption for all of the worlds' sins for all eternity.  None of that makes Earthly sense, but that is what I believe.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 6, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> Actually, yes I am content with that.
> 
> It doesn't make logical sense that a woman can have a baby but never have sex.  It also doesn't make sense that a "man" can die and his death be the redemption for all of the worlds' sins for all eternity.  None of that makes Earthly sense, but that is what I believe.


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2009)

I believe it happend but my belief is that "Noah's" part of the world flooded.  Not the whole world as we know it today just the part they knew of at the time.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Jan 6, 2009)

PWalls said:


> No. Some of us understand that we don't have to actually have the answer. Some of us understand that Faith is sufficient.



With ya brother



Doc_Holliday23 said:


> Actually, yes I am content with that.
> 
> It doesn't make logical sense that a woman can have a baby but never have sex.  It also doesn't make sense that a "man" can die and his death be the redemption for all of the worlds' sins for all eternity.  None of that makes Earthly sense, but that is what I believe.



Thank goodness some walk by faith and not by sight.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 6, 2009)

THREEJAYS said:


> With ya brother
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness some walk by faith and not by sight.



AMEN! Faith comes by hearing,and hearing by the Word of God.


----------



## Branchminnow (Jan 6, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> A .  This forum is also pretty amusing.





I find it quite amusing myself but I think maybe we are on opposite ends of the spectrum..........


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> Actually, yes I am content with that.
> 
> It doesn't make logical sense that a woman can have a baby but never have sex.  It also doesn't make sense that a "man" can die and his death be the redemption for all of the worlds' sins for all eternity.  None of that makes Earthly sense, but that is what I believe.



I think that you are part of a dying breed of Christian. There's nothing wrong with that way of thinking, I just think that's why it seems that many younger Christians are leaning towards the moderate/liberal part of the spectrum. Many young people, especially at universities, are either becoming very liberal or becoming atheists because fundamentalists are unable to answer their questions in a way that they feel is adequate. All the while, liberals are giving answers like the one that jason gave above and atheists are using the "faith is not an acceptable answer" argument to swing younger Christians their way. Don't you feel the need to evolve and adapt to the new generation?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think that you are part of a dying breed of Christian. There's nothing wrong with that way of thinking, I just think that's why it seems that many younger Christians are leaning towards the moderate/liberal part of the spectrum. Many young people, especially at universities, are either becoming very liberal or becoming atheists because fundamentalists are unable to answer their questions in a way that they feel is adequate. All the while, liberals are giving answers like the one that jason gave above and atheists are using the "faith is not an acceptable answer" argument to swing younger Christians their way. Don't you feel the need to evolve and adapt to the new generation?



Don't feel the need to forsake the truth for a lie. Why do you feel the need to accept a lie that will condemn you for eternity to the bowels of perdition?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 6, 2009)

Because the concept of he11 (hmmm... profanity filter got me) is a meme created to extend the life of a religion?


----------



## BobbysGirl (Jan 6, 2009)

I believe in everything that is in the Bible. I don't have to know the "who, what, when, where and whys" to it all. God will explain that to us all one day just as He will show the non belivers that He is real and in control.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I would think that many are not asking you to give explanations just so they can argue. Some are genuinely interested in your answers and how you explain certain things in the Bible. If someone asks you about something specific that happened in the Bible (ie Noah's ark), are you content with simply telling that person that you must accept it on faith because not everything in the Bible is perfectly logical in our minds?



He's referring to me.  Apparently, rangerdave's opinion of me is not very high.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 6, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Some of you seem to be invoking faith when you either don't have the answer, don't want to look for the answer, or simply do not care about knowing the answer.



I didn't want to say it.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> He's referring to me.  Apparently, rangerdave's opinion of me is not very high.



  I wonder why?.... a good man like you, of high faith that adds so much to the cause of Christ...shame on ranger dave...he needs one of these


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 7, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I wonder why?.... a good man of high faith that adds so much to the cause of Christ...shame on ranger dave...he needs one of these



From the menu page for "Spiritual Discussions, Debate and Study":


> Need questions answered, want to get involved with a study group or maybe just want a little clarification? This is the place for you.



I'm just asking questions; just trying to get some concepts cleared up.  You don't have to read my posts if they make you uncomfortable.  I still haven't gotten an answer for what buzzards ate while on board the ark, fwiw.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> From the menu page for "Spiritual Discussions, Debate and Study":
> 
> 
> I'm just asking questions; just trying to get some concepts cleared up.  You don't have to read my posts if they make you uncomfortable.  I still haven't gotten an answer for what buzzards ate while on board the ark, fwiw.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/caring-for-the-animals



They don't even cite sources. Look at this statement from the website:



> Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures.



I would love to see the "studies" he's talking about, as would any engineer, zookeeper, etc. Unfortunately, he doesn't cite the studies, if there really is any studies at all.



> Based on my two decades of research, I do not believe that anything more was needed than a basic, non-mechanical ventilation system.



Where is the research? Evidently it was not good enough to be published by any respectable journals. Why doesn't he provide materials for us to review? Does he have materials?



> It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants and rhinos. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area because it is most likely that these animals were young, but not newborns. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.



Again, no text citations. I'd like to see his definition of "relatively small" when he looks at the dinosaur Sauroposeidon.

This is the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense you get when you ask fundamentalist Christian high school science teachers their explanations of these Biblical "miracles". He cites nothing. The article is littered with incredible assumptions (The dinosaurs would be young, etc.) that he does not back up with scripture. He talks about studies which he does not cite. He uses original research which he does not cite. Where is the peer-reviewed literature to back up anything he says? There is none.

The sad part is that these types of articles convince many Christians that the young earth Creationist movement has merit. They are looking for anything that looks remotely scientific to use as an answer to skeptics. The question was, "What would the buzzards eat?" and you posted an entire article that I guess you assumed would have the answer. The problem is that it doesn't answer that specific question. The only thing that is close is,



> Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets.



but yet again, the author provides no citations of research which support his argument. He simply assumes that we have complete trust in what he is saying and that somewhere out there is data which agrees with his statements.

In short, where are the peer-reviewed articles? Where are the citations? Where is the data? Where is the materials from his original research?


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> From the menu page for "Spiritual Discussions, Debate and Study":
> 
> 
> I'm just asking questions; just trying to get some concepts cleared up.  You don't have to read my posts if they make you uncomfortable.  I still haven't gotten an answer for what buzzards ate while on board the ark, fwiw.



Perhaps they ate a six million dollar ham? Is that the answer to your burning question?
Your questions are absolutely ridiculous and of no consequence at all.They are purely to stir up emotions.Why else would a seemingly intelligent person ask such childish questions?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> From the menu page for "Spiritual Discussions, Debate and Study":
> 
> 
> I'm just asking questions; just trying to get some concepts cleared up.  You don't have to read my posts if they make you uncomfortable.  I still haven't gotten an answer for what buzzards ate while on board the ark, fwiw.



 They ate dead carcases of animals and people that were floating all around the out side of the ark... a buzzard can fly and land on something big like a dead elephant and eat all the want.....


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



Remember your Science?  What "Kind" means?  God called every animal after its "Kind".  So not every specific animal we know of today was on board...each "Kind" was on board...  

You assume the oceans were salty before the flood....perhaps the flood resulted in the salinity of the oceans as we know them now?

Rain was not the only source of the water contributing to the flood...the springs of the deep also opened to contribute to the 40 days of rain...they could have also contained levels of salinity.

Reading scripture looking through a scientist's view is awesome and rewarding....you should try it, I have and I honestly see how it could happen exactly as recorded....cool stuff and excellent questions keep them coming!!!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

Some of the biggest things holding me back from believing the Ark story are:

There is no way that ALL of the species could have fit onto the Ark. That is why almost all of the Biblical literalists use the word "kind" instead of species. They claim that (for example) a male and female cat boarded the Ark, not a male and female lion, tiger, leopard, snow leopard, jaguar, lynx, cheetah, etc. They do this with all species. In this way, they claim, all "kinds" of animals could fit in the ark. They say that after the flood, the cats exited, mated, and differentiated into all the species we see today. My problem with this theory is that there simply hasn't been enough time for the species to differentiate to where they are today. There's no way that a cat could evolve into a cheetah or lion within 5 thousand years.

Some "kinds" are only found on the New World, Austrailia, etc. Examples, the sloths in the Americas; the platypus in Australia, etc. How did these animals make it to the ship? Did 2 sloths swim across the Atlantic? I think not. What's more is how did they get back to their native environment? Did the sloths cross back over the Atlantic? I never knew sloths could swim so well. There are plenty of other examples of animals which only live in one hemisphere or the other, I just used these two.

The genetics involved with having only one male and one female of species/kind and attempting to maintain the species with only two sets of DNA. What hurts this even more is that Christians are divided on whether 7 of each species entered or only 2.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 7, 2009)

Footjunior,you hit the nail with that: Division over trivial things hurts Christianity AND this forum more than anything I know of.It makes ALL Christians look like a bunch of bickering kids,in the eyes of people who read what is written here.I know I've been guilty,too.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Some of the biggest things holding me back from believing the Ark story are:
> 
> There is no way that ALL of the species could have fit onto the Ark. That is why almost all of the Biblical literalists use the word "kind" instead of species. They claim that (for example) a male and female cat boarded the Ark, not a male and female lion, tiger, leopard, snow leopard, jaguar, lynx, cheetah, etc. They do this with all species. In this way, they claim, all "kinds" of animals could fit in the ark. They say that after the flood, the cats exited, mated, and differentiated into all the species we see today. My problem with this theory is that there simply hasn't been enough time for the species to differentiate to where they are today. There's no way that a cat could evolve into a cheetah or lion within 5 thousand years.
> 
> ...



This is a great post...very honest and probing.  I don't think the sloths swam across the ocean, but footjunior, I submitt to you that is more probable than any eye developing on its own...by chance....or the process of reproduction happening over billions of years by chance...really, the sloth swimming across the ocean is more likely than even the smallest proteins formulating by chance...that is 1 to the 100th power....impossible!!  

"Kind" is the word used in my New King James, so if you include that as biblical literalists, I guess will have to fit....it is in the scripture, I didn't make it up!  

If you actually get in and read the text, you will find there is no argument over the numbers....7 clean animals were called and 2 unclean animals were called...this is clear and perfectly supports healthy genetic mixing for the clean animals to survive and thrive after the flood and does make perfect sense (in my humble opinion) for more rapidly transforming sub-spieces to take place...all the genetic codes were present in the 7 animals...just like humans after the flood as well.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 7, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> They ate dead carcases of animals and people that were floating all around the out side of the ark... a buzzard can fly and land on something big like a dead elephant and eat all the want.....



pigpen1, that is reasonable....and possible...I like it!


----------



## Phillip Thurmond (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think that you are part of a dying breed of Christian. There's nothing wrong with that way of thinking, I just think that's why it seems that many younger Christians are leaning towards the moderate/liberal part of the spectrum. Many young people, especially at universities, are either becoming very liberal or becoming atheists because fundamentalists are unable to answer their questions in a way that they feel is adequate. All the while, liberals are giving answers like the one that jason gave above and atheists are using the "faith is not an acceptable answer" argument to swing younger Christians their way. Don't you feel the need to evolve and adapt to the new generation?



Boy are you and others falling for the "Big Lie" of Satin.  Read Revelations sometime.  What is happening now is predicted at the end of times.  It really does not matter what you believe or even what you think.  Every knee shall bow and every tounge shall confess that he is Lord!  I would not want to be in your shoes come judgement day!  I know this may be a little strong but I'll take my chances with Jesus!  
The Bible says it, I believe it, That settles it!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> I don't think the sloths swam across the ocean, but footjunior, I submitt to you that is more probable than any eye developing on its own...by chance....or the process of reproduction happening over billions of years by chance...really, the sloth swimming across the ocean is more likely than even the smallest proteins formulating by chance...that is 1 to the 100th power....impossible!!



Again. Name one scientist that says that the eye developed by "chance". Natural selection is not chance.

Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duBW9QabXfw


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 7, 2009)

if "faith is not an acceptable answer" for these ultra-smarty pants university students then Christianity is not for them.  Faith not only explains the details about the Bible, such as creation, the flood, etc., it is the sole explanation for the main aspect of the Bible: Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, came to Earth to die for our sins.

Faith, to the Christian, is THE ONLY answer.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 7, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> if "faith is not an acceptable answer" for these ultra-smarty pants university students then Christianity is not for them.


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 7, 2009)

"If you actually get in and read the text, you will find there is no argument over the numbers....7 clean animals were called and 2 unclean animals were called...this is clear and perfectly supports healthy genetic mixing for the clean animals to survive and thrive after the flood and does make perfect sense (in my humble opinion) for more rapidly transforming sub-spieces to take place...all the genetic codes were present in the 7 animals...just like humans after the flood as well."

Let's read the text. The numbers in the Noah story is the main question.  In Genesis 6 - 17 God tells Noah to take two of every living thing of every sort and they shall be male and female.

Then in chapter, seven, God changes his mind and tells Noah to take only the clean beasts three by seven, the male and the female, and of beasts that are not clean by two; the male and his female.

Finally in Chapter seven verse 9, when the rains start, all the animals went into the ark only two by two.  No animals went  in three by seven.

So the animals did not go into the ark three by seven, but went in two by two, so that kind of makes the genetic thing void.  Also if they did go in three by seven that was only the clean animals, the unclean animals still would have gone in two by two.  There are almost 80 animals that Jews consider unclean - some are the pig, bat, fox, dog, horse, raccoon, all shellfish and most all fish with skin.  These living things only went in two by two, like all the animals did, and these unclean animals seemed to have done quite well genetically.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 7, 2009)

footjunior said:


>



there's no need to be shocked.  faith, alone, is the basis ofsalvation through Jesus Christ.  reason and logic will not save anyone.

don't misinterpret me and think that I believe that Christ isn't for everybody.  He most certainly is.  He died for every person who will ever live and it is not his will that any of them perish.  however, a person who thinks he can come to Christ through his own logic and reason and not have to have any faith is mistaken.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 7, 2009)

rangerdave said:


> Perhaps they ate a six million dollar ham? Is that the answer to your burning question?


Not a very substantive answer you provide, so "no".



rangerdave said:


> Your questions are absolutely ridiculous and of no consequence at all.They are purely to stir up emotions.Why else would a seemingly intelligent person ask such childish questions?



Because the story of Noah's ark, as I recall it, makes no sense.  I'll refer you yet again to the header for this particular board.  

Keep in mind:
"Spiritual"  is not the same as "Christian only"
                                  -also-
"Discussions, Debate and Study" is not the same as "Bible study"

I've gotten some good, well thought out answers and others, not so much.  It's not just me debating it.  Try to stop passing judgment and have a nice one.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 7, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> Remember your Science?  What "Kind" means?  God called every animal after its "Kind".  So not every specific animal we know of today was on board...each "Kind" was on board...



Okay.  Let's consider deer as something familiar.  I'll give the writers some slack - the concepts of family, genus, species hadn't come about yet.  Where is the line for "kind" drawn on this progression?  If it's species, then we've got a pair of moose, a pair of elk, a pair of muleys, a pair of whitetail, caribou, blacktail, fallow, red, etc.  If it's genus....what was on the ark that is responsible for the various species of deer we recognize today?



creation's_cause said:


> You assume the oceans were salty before the flood....perhaps the flood resulted in the salinity of the oceans as we know them now?



Good point.  But I accept that sharks are older than humans, biologically speaking.  I'm thinking sharks have always had saltwater....before and after the ark.



creation's_cause said:


> Rain was not the only source of the water contributing to the flood...the springs of the deep also opened to contribute to the 40 days of rain...they could have also contained levels of salinity.



I'm not familiar with salinity of springwater per se, but I've had artesian wellwater, fountain of youth water, and mountain spring water.  Poland Spring lists nothing for sodium on the nutrition label for its product, too.  So I'm thinking, for the most part, springs will be fresh.  



creation's_cause said:


> Reading scripture looking through a scientist's view is awesome and rewarding....you should try it, I have and I honestly see how it could happen exactly as recorded....



I respectfully part ways with your views, but I certainly appreciate the approach you take to engaging in solid academic discussion.  My hat's off.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 7, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> don't misinterpret me and think that I believe that Christ isn't for everybody.  He most certainly is.



Well I'm confused now.  Your previous post is very specific about for whom Christianity is not appropriate.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 7, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Well I'm confused now.  Your previous post is very specific about for whom Christianity is not appropriate.



No, that's not what I said.  I said if a person has the viewpoint that "faith is not a good enough answer" then they are not going to be able to justify being a Christian because being a Christian requires a certain measure of faith.

Christ is for everyone.  But to accept him, you have to have faith.  Simple as that.  Everybody chooses whether or not they want to accept Christ.  Christ wants everyone, but not everyone wants Christ.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 8, 2009)

Genesis Chapter 7:  Verses 2 and 3, (King James Version):

_Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth._

Not sure what part of this you are contending....yes previous  verses do indicate less, but in my reading this is the most comprehensive verse....and comparing it with, yes, Science and genetic mixing it makes perfect sense...it doesn't have to, but God is awesome that way many times, he gives us un-refutable evidence of his exsistance and what he has been up to on this good ole earth, but some still will not believe...I am not one of them....are you jason4445?  Your arguments here seem to indicate you do??


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 8, 2009)

Genesis Chap 7, verse 9 (King James Version):  _There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah._

jason4445--hope you are not using this verse, clearly just describing the fact that the animals boarded the ark in pairs, as some contradiciton of what God said was to happen.  And obviously, since God's plan was for an odd number, seven, to be called into the ark, one of them had to board alone....man....this is way too simple to blow totally out of proportion, again my humble opinion only.  It is great to get in a tear the scriptures apart asking questions....it is how you can become a "rock" to those around you....and if you do it in the fear and admonition of the Lord he will reward you for doing it.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 8, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> Genesis Chap 7, verse 9 (King James Version):  _There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah._
> 
> jason4445--hope you are not using this verse, clearly just describing the fact that the animals boarded the ark in pairs, as some contradiciton of what God said was to happen.  And obviously, since God's plan was for an odd number, seven, to be called into the ark, one of them had to board alone....man....this is way too simple to blow totally out of proportion, again my humble opinion only.  It is great to get in a tear the scriptures apart asking questions....it is how you can become a "rock" to those around you....and if you do it in the fear and admonition of the Lord he will reward you for doing it.



Even if we accept your interpretation as you described above, Jason made a good point a few posts back. Pigs, snailfish, etc. were considered unclean, therefore only 1 male and 1 female from each unclean kind boarded. How do you explain the existence of pigs today? 1 male and 1 female of a kind is genetically unable to produce a large population.

And even if we set the above argument aside, I still haven't seen evidence of how a cat can evolve into so many different types of felines in just 5,000 years.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 8, 2009)

You guys never fail to bring on excellent points....you will make great advocates one day perhaps for creation....I can only pray!!

We are making radically different assumptions with respect to what was a clean and unclean animal...which is totally understandable....I am not certain which ones God considered clean or unclean at the time of the flood...but I am certain that Mosaic and Levitical Law had not been recorded as yet...I believe, imho, it had more to do with the Satanic defilment, other than the pork and crustacian issues of Leviticus and Levitical Law....and it also is a rational explanation of why this ferocious, flesh eating/ripper, terrible lizard went largely extinct when by all laws of natural selection they should have thrived and even evolved into some form of intelligent, more human-like forms?  After all, they were highly evolved and totally in control?  Right??  Wow, and snails survived and they didn't...makes me think?  What about you??


----------



## footjunior (Jan 8, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> and it also is a rational explanation of why this ferocious, flesh eating/ripper, terrible lizard went largely extinct when by all laws of natural selection they should have thrived and even evolved into some form of intelligent, more human-like forms?  After all, they were highly evolved and totally in control?  Right??  Wow, and snails survived and they didn't...makes me think?  What about you??



You lost me. The T-Rex went extinct long before Noah. Even if we accept that the T-Rex walked alongside humans, why do you say that "by all laws of natural selection they should have thrived and even evolved into some form of intelligent, more human-like forms"? Evolution is not on a ladder, with humans at the top. All animals are not destined to become humans. I have heard some evolutionists say that the bigger brains that humans evolved might not be such a beneficial trait for humans in the long run. It makes sense. Our big brains have created nuclear bombs, incredibly dangerous viruses, etc. These things might cause the extinction of humans one day. A chimpanzee is intelligent because it is beneficial to be intelligent in the environment the chimp lives in. Likewise a T-Rex only needs to be so intelligent in order to survive in his environment. Intelligence comes at a cost. The human brain burns a lot of calories, and calories were a luxury in our primitive days.

I'm confused on the snail bit as well. There were plenty of species that survived the great dinosaur extinction, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Snails were able to survive, most dinosaurs were not.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 8, 2009)

Lost and confused....I hate it when that happens.  _"A chimpanzee is intelligent because it is beneficial to be intelligent in the environment the chimp lives in."     _  And with statements like this I can see why?  What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 8, 2009)

rangerdave said:


> Perhaps they ate a six million dollar ham? Is that the answer to your burning question?
> Your questions are absolutely ridiculous and of no consequence at all.



Would that be the answer you would give if your child came and asked you that same question?  

Just curious.....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 8, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> if "faith is not an acceptable answer" for these ultra-smarty pants university students then Christianity is not for them.





Six million dollar ham said:


> Well I'm confused now.  Your previous post is very specific about for whom Christianity is not appropriate.





Doc_Holliday23 said:


> No, that's not what I said.  I said if a person has the viewpoint that "faith is not a good enough answer" then they are not going to be able to justify being a Christian because being a Christian requires a certain measure of faith.



No, that IS what you said.  That may not have been what you _meant_, but it is, in fact, what you said.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 8, 2009)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> if "faith is not an acceptable answer" for these ultra-smarty pants university students then Christianity is not for them.  Faith not only explains the details about the Bible, such as creation, the flood, etc., it is the sole explanation for the main aspect of the Bible: Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, came to Earth to die for our sins.
> 
> Faith, to the Christian, is THE ONLY answer.




Actually, that's incorrect.  In reality, faith removes the need for explanation.   You must use faith when there is no explanation.  It is not an explanation, it is a substitute.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 8, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> No, that IS what you said.  That may not have been what you _meant_, but it is, in fact, what you said.



everybody here knows that Christians believe Jesus Christ died for *all* mankind.  Me saying "Christianity isn't for them" is a figure of speech.

It's like saying "Longhorn steakhouse isn't for vegetarians" even though we all know that any person out there can walk into Longhorn, sit down, order, and eat if they so choose.  However, if they don't want to eat meat (or don't want to rely on faith) then Longhorn (Christianity) isn't for them.

Let's not be too nitpicky.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 8, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Actually, that's incorrect.  In reality, faith removes the need for explanation.   You must use faith when there is no explanation.  It is not an explanation, it is a substitute.



once again, you're nitpicking the semantics.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 8, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> Lost and confused....I hate it when that happens.  _"A chimpanzee is intelligent because it is beneficial to be intelligent in the environment the chimp lives in."     _  And with statements like this I can see why?  What is that supposed to mean?



The statement means that if it was genetically beneficial to chimpanzees to develop bigger brains, natural selection would select the chimpanzees that had traits which promote bigger brains.

Likewise, if it is not beneficial for a T-Rex to have a bigger brain, then natural selection would not select traits which promote bigger brains.

This is the core concept in the theory of evolution via natural selection.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jan 8, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think that you are part of a dying breed of Christian. There's nothing wrong with that way of thinking, I just think that's why it seems that many younger Christians are leaning towards the moderate/liberal part of the spectrum. Many young people, especially at universities, are either becoming very liberal or becoming atheists because fundamentalists are unable to answer their questions in a way that they feel is adequate. All the while, liberals are giving answers like the one that jason gave above and atheists are using the "faith is not an acceptable answer" argument to swing younger Christians their way. Don't you feel the need to evolve and adapt to the new generation?



btw... I'm only 26 and I have a degree from Georgia Tech so I'm plenty familiar with the "young people, especially at universities" demographic.

For your last question, the Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so no, I do not feel any need to "evolve and/or adapt" for a new generation.  I feel the need to adapt my witnessing strategies for different age groups and cultures, but the message is still the same throughout history: "For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."


----------



## z71gacowboy (Jan 13, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> Did a great flood happen?  Indeed it did, every culture and every religion that has existed on earth has a flood story. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.  In more modern times accounts have been written about the flood not only in the Bible but in Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the Koran, any book of history has one.
> 
> Of course, all these cultures existed at different times than Noah, so was there one great flood or many?  I think there was one, and the story is so great showing God purifying the earth with water, that all cultures adopted the story into their religious writings.
> 
> ...



No offense but you read this so so wrong....heres the text
*genesis 6*
_19 _And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. _20_ Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
*Genesis 7*
_2_ You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; _3 _also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.
Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth,_ 9 _two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. 

God's not saying 3 of these 7 of those they are all going into the ark two by two.....with the birds it says 7 each of male and female so thier are seven pairs going into the ark. Same with the clean and unclean animals. Two by two is a term as I read for a mating pair. So it doesnt just mean two of these, two of those....it's two mating pairs. So birds had seven mating pairs (fourteen total birds), clean beast had seven pairs (fourteen total clean beasts), unclean beast had 2 pairs (four total unclean beasts). The problem is not the word of God it's our human "mis" understanding, and its worse when its coupled with staunch disbelief and refusal to consider the slightest possibility that hey God is God and his word true and irrefutable. Oh ye of little faith.  love ya guys


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 13, 2009)

Okay you must have one of these new agey modern translation Bibles. When things do not kind of Gee Haw they tend to change, add to, or take away phrases and words.

Your Bible says in Genesis 7 - 2:

"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female, two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female

The same passage in my Bible (KJV) says:

Of every clean beast thou shall take to three by seven - the male and the female, and of beasts that are not clean by two the male and the female."

Seems like your Bible left out that annoying three number in this passage. Your Bible tells that Noah was only to take the clean animals by seven, not three by seven as mine does.  Also, and I realize that everyone can get different spin to any part of the Bible, but l when God says to take animals two by two a male and a female one can only deduct that means one male and one female.  So when God says to take clean animals three by seven the male and the female God is saying to take three males and seven females.  

However, you comments brought me to see yet other contradictions in the Noah story.

In Genesis 7 - 3 the Bible says 

Of fowls also of the air by sevens the male and the female to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

Okay God first tells Noah two by two - then changes it to clean animals three by seven and unclean two by two - then changes his mind again and adds birds to be taken just by seven, the male and the female.  

How can you take seven of anything by the male and female. It is an odd number - you can take 6 females and one male - four females and three males, five females and two males, etc.,  but you can't take seven birds by just the male and the female.

Also even ignoring all of the above if God tells Noah to take seven birds the male and the female then they must be clean, however, the list of unclean birds in Jewish law is extensive.  Not to list them all, but  the unclean birds are (Deut. xiv. 11-18) all the birds of prey, all scavengers, and most all waterfowl, 

Then to top it all off Noah ended up ignoring all of God's threes by sevens, and sevens and loaded up the ark two by two.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Because the concept of he11 (hmmm... profanity filter got me) is a meme created to extend the life of a religion?



Created by who?

Wasn't he11 mentioned in the OT? before Christianity? So Christians didn't create it.  Who did?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Created by who?
> 
> Wasn't he11 mentioned in the OT? before Christianity? So Christians didn't create it.  Who did?



That's a great question. Scholars could find the earliest known religious text and point to that as a source for the first concept of he11 being introduced into religion, but that might not be the first thought. I would imagine that the concept of he11 is very old, perhaps predating such things as a written language, but that's just a guess.

In short, I wish I knew the answer. I'm guessing a lot of religious scholars wish they knew the answer.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 13, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Would that be the answer you would give if your child came and asked you that same question?
> 
> Just curious.....



Nope - I know a child when I see one,and I'm pretty good at explaining things in a way that a child can understand.

That's one quirk in my personality - I get along with and communicate with kids ,dogs,and old folks very well.Most adults - not so good.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 13, 2009)

With respect to the numbers of creatures called into the ark..."Thee" is not a word we use a lot these days, but you might look closely and for certain my New King James version says Take Thee...as in "You take"...actually it is a command for Noah to prepare for a certain number of animals as God called them into the ark.  The continued insistance to define clean and unclean on a much later Levitical law is a stumbling block for many people...please think about this again....it should not be a stumbling block for understanding what is written in Genesis....why the difference in clean vs unclean...we know that everything God had created was "good" until sin and evil came in and attempted to destroy.  I believe the truth of God's Word is there for the grasping...when you seek Him with all of your heart.  It requires a contrite heart and humble spirit...but through these great power and wisdom are waiting for you as well as God's gift of eternal life...there is no better gift or any better gift giver!!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> The continued insistance to define clean and unclean on a much later Levitical law is a stumbling block for many people



If you do not use the Levitical law to define what was clean and unclean, then what do you use?

The bottom line is that if there were not unclean animals before the flood, then why did God insist on different numbers for the unclean animals? If there were unclean animals then the previous argument still holds:



> Even if we accept your interpretation as you described above, Jason made a good point a few posts back. Pigs, snailfish, etc. were considered unclean, therefore only 1 male and 1 female from each unclean kind boarded. How do you explain the existence of pigs today? 1 male and 1 female of a kind is genetically unable to produce a large population.
> 
> And even if we set the above argument aside, I still haven't seen evidence of how a cat can evolve into so many different types of felines in just 5,000 years.


----------



## creation's_cause (Jan 14, 2009)

Let's take this one issue at a time just to cover them appropriately  and in an attempt to be as clear as possible...if that is OK?

Did you come to resolution on the "Three" vs "Thee"??  See post 105.

Clean vs Unclean animals....God clearly states that by having 7 come onto the ark, it is in an effort to continue these animals and birds after the flood and after the earth is restored...and I believe it is feasable and logical to deduce that God may not have desired for the unclean animals to continue to propagate as a "Kind" of animal after the flood...And nearest I can tell I equate this to "Species"...correct me if I am wrong.  Once again, I submitt as a possible and logical deduction, that these animals were defiled by demonic beings....as with the serpent being the first example of this....and according to scripture clearly this was the case.  

So if you consider it ill-logical to think that part of the created amimals were subjected to a demonic effort of defilement, much like humans were through and including the nephilim, then please disregard and move on to some further explanation....you have mine and if you disagree, so be it....I just responded again in an effort to be as clear as possible about a rather complicated and very aged discussion.....like I said before, I am not creating another gospel here, but throughout my adult like the dinos have been a potential stumbling block for me, however, I believe the Lord has given me a revelation, small r, in an answer to prayer...and I believe He has presented to me a very plausible and possible accounting for the defilement of reptiles, the growth and exsistance of Dinos, why they met their demise and how the flood played into this....I am open to other interpretations but have not found/heard one than is more plausible to my military, God-infused mind and one that does match up to truths of scripture.  Am 100% sure of this no, but I don't need to be either.  I just need to know it is plausible and consistent with parts of scripture and then take the rest on faith....but it is not blind faith!!


----------



## footjunior (Jan 14, 2009)

creation's_cause said:


> Clean vs Unclean animals....God clearly states that by having 7 come onto the ark, it is in an effort to continue these animals and birds after the flood and after the earth is restored...and I believe it is feasable and logical to deduce that God may not have desired for the unclean animals to continue to propagate as a "Kind" of animal after the flood...



If God did not want these unclean animals to continue to exist after the flood, then why did God send them into the ark?



> And nearest I can tell I equate this to "Species"...correct me if I am wrong.



I believe you are wrong. It was not possible for every species to board the ark. That is why creationists use "kind." However, as posted above, this "kind" theory has issues as well.



> Once again, I submitt as a possible and logical deduction, that these animals were defiled by demonic beings....as with the serpent being the first example of this....and according to scripture clearly this was the case.



Logical? Not to me, but evidently to some. Natural selection is more than capable of explaining why certain dinosaurs look the way they do.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 14, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Dude, can't you see.  For believers (at least the majority of what I've seen), nothing has to make logical sense when it comes to the Bible.  As a matter of fact they think reason is an anathema to faith.



Define anathema? 



farmasis said:


> Ambush, I am not really attacking you, but you sure do spend a lot of time here not contributing anything.



That's what I was thinking. 



PWalls said:


> Those two words should never be used together. That usage should be considered oxymoron. Thank you for clarifying your "belief" for me. The other thread you started kinda hinted. This one seals the deal.
> COLOR="Black"][/COLOR]
> I will be quite happy to be a fundamental and conservative Christian when it comes to God's Word.
> 
> BTW, this is not a "slam" on you or intended as an insult. I just find it helpful when debating/discussing to have in my mind an idea of someone else's beliefs so I know what perspective they are coming from. Some on here are Atheists, Catholics, Reformed, etc.



See red. Me too...
Atheists, Catholics, Reformed, etc. Did you mean Baptist too...?


rjcruiser said:


> Hmmm...kinda like peaceful muslim



No such thing, unless of course, you are talking about the
one's that are not breathing and shooting AK-47's and stuff



PWalls said:


> No. Some of us understand that we don't have to actually have the answer. Some of us understand that Faith is sufficient.



Sounds like that Catholic Mother of yours almost had you


----------



## christianhunter (Jan 14, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did Noah keep predators and prey in seperate compartments?  Each level of the food chain had an enclosed deck maybe?  What did buzzards eat?  How'd he manage to get 2 musk ox, 2 capybaras, 2 galapagos tortoises, 2 duck-billed platypuses, and 2 giraffes on board?  Was salinity of the waters taken into account in some way?  I'd presume rain (I won't even ask where it came from) is freshwater and would thus dilute the world's oceans into a habitat unsuitable for saltwater species.
> 
> Do you really believe the Noah's ark part of the Holy Bible or do you just sort of de-emphasize that part?  If it's a feasible occurrence, I'd like to read why you think so.
> 
> Thanks.



I would think the Ocean waters were not diluted to a point where sea life would have been affected.The rain water was washing over rock sand,and dirt all of which are salty to an extent.They could have went deeper and the fresh water fish could have stayed shallow,higher in the water.We are talking about GOD the giver of life,ALL things are possible with HIM.I believe HE shut the mouths of the predators,and they knew what to do,and what not to do,I'm sure they were fed something.They knew how to get to the ark didn't they.Even the storms obeyed THE LORD JESUS,when HE said Peace,be still.If the elements obey,the animals do also.


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 14, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Go right ahead.  Why wasn't divine intervention used to just kill everybody?  Nobody just so happens to not see the bus coming when they walk out....god makes them walk out in front of the bus.  God just wanted something memorable that people would talk about forever, like a flood, to teach a lesson?


The Body is of no consequence to God , it is the Soul he cares about, So those were killed because of their sin but ,then Jesus redeemed them from Hades itself.

1Pt:3: 14: But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17: For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
18: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Ephesians says;
20: Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Ephesians 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Ephesians 4:9 tells us that Christ descended to the lower parts of the earth before He ascended to heaven. He ascended to heaven after His resurrection. When He ascended to heaven He took paradise with Him. That is what verse 8 means by led captivity captive.


----------

