god: the lost years

Originally posted by Suzianne
I do not claim to speak for jaywill, but there were far less people in the earth in those days. It's possible that a 'local' flood, or a series of 'local' floods could indeed be considered 'worldwide' as far as the extinction of man is considered.

if the flood was local then wouldnt it be pointless to build an ark? in the time it took to build a man could just walk to higher ground. there would also be no need for the animals to be saved, they would do better fleeing a local flood than being stuck in a floating timber yard for weeks on end.

sooo busted , ahhh the pain.

Oh, the time to read that.

Couldn't you reduce that "sooo" to just "soo" and that "ahhh" to just "ahh" ?

This is getting to be fun.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if the flood was local then wouldnt it be pointless to build an ark? in the time it took to build a man could just walk to higher ground. there would also be no need for the animals to be saved, they would do better fleeing a local flood than being stuck in a floating timber yard for weeks on end.

If it were 'widespread' just enough to bring man to extinction, how many species of animals would also die? Also, if it were that widespread, then I'm not sure any amount of 'running away' would lead you to safety. Couldn't God just make another 'local' flood with your name on it?

Why not just call it 'worldwide' to Noah to prevent any 'running away' ideas and necessitate building a boat big enough. It would also tend to exquisitely focus Noah's mind on the task at hand.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if the flood was local then wouldnt it be pointless to build an ark? in the time it took to build a man could just walk to higher ground. there would also be no need for the animals to be saved, they would do better fleeing a local flood than being stuck in a floating timber yard for weeks on end.

God gave Noah a 40 year warning as well, which is 14600 days. You could walk a long way in that time.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] I ask you where do you think the last and final authority is ?

Do you think there is One for whom the cosmic buck actually stops ?

Sorry, but I don't think there is, or needs to be, a last and final authority. I am happy with my position that stoning someone to death is immoral. I am sad that you don't think it is.

I think that the use of the 'buck stops here' phrase was, in any case, poorly chosen. It may mean something different to you, but to me it does not just mean someone who does not try to pass responsibility on to someone else. It also means that the person can and should be held accountable for their decisions and mistakes.

But that does not apply to God. If he says stoning a women to death is OK, you just accept that it is. There is no comeback for God or accountability.

Just as a President should also not be above the law, God should not be exempt from criticism and challenge, just because he is very powerful and created us.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if the flood was local then wouldnt it be pointless to build an ark? in the time it took to build a man could just walk to higher ground. there would also be no need for the animals to be saved, they would do better fleeing a local flood than being stuck in a floating timber yard for weeks on end.

if the flood was local then wouldnt it be pointless to build an ark? in the time it took to build a man could just walk to higher ground. there would also be no need for the animals to be saved, they would do better fleeing a local flood than being stuck in a floating timber yard for weeks on end.

Not answering for Suzzaine either.

It would not be pointless to build an ark.

Here's the problem. Salvation consists of being made righteous according to God's standard.

If God said "To be saved, go to the high mountain over there." And Noah instead decided to build an ark, then he would not have been justified.

Okay. Our attitude is this "We don't care HOW we get saved just as long as we get saved. The procedure matters nothing. As long as we get saved that is all we care about. The procedure can be according to God's command or NOT according to God's command."

This is like the thief who just wants the money. He doesn't care how he gets the money. That he gets the money is all that matters.

God revealed the manner in which Noah was to be saved. For sure it was a window into the antitype of Jesus Christ. We must be IN Him.

So your quip that this or that would have been more efficient or more logical is mere human disregard for the importance of God's way to save.

There is something else which I think you under appreciate. I won't write about it here. Long enough.

No snoring aloud !

Originally posted by Proper Knob
God gave Noah a 40 year warning as well, which is 14600 days. You could walk a long way in that time.

40 years is a long time. Got anything to back this up? And yeah, a Bible verse or verses would be good enough. I know your 'logic' tells you it wouldn't be, but we're talking about a biblical story to begin with here.

Also, while you would think 40 years is long enough, look at the Hebrews leaving Egypt to go to Canaan. It took them 40 years just to get that far.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If it were 'widespread' just enough to bring man to extinction, how many species of animals would also die? Also, if it were that widespread, then I'm not sure any amount of 'running away' would lead you to safety. Couldn't God just make another 'local' flood with your name on it?

for it to be just widespread enough it would have to be a global flood. tribes living at high altitude would mean the flood would need to be so deep the entire globe would be flooded.


my name!! :'(

Originally posted by sonship
If God said "To be saved, go to the high mountain over there." And Noah instead decided to build an ark, then he would not have been justified.

Okay. Our attitude is this "We don't care HOW we get saved just as long as we get saved. The procedure matters nothing. As long as we get saved that is all we care about. The procedure can be according to God's ...[text shortened]... ient or more logical is mere human disregard for the importance of God's way to save.

Yes, there's this. While I agree, presenting God's word in this way to unbelievers doesn't have a perfect track record. If they don't bother to believe, then why would they give a fat fig for thinking about how God thinks?

Originally posted by Suzianne
40 years is a long time. Got anything to back this up? And yeah, a Bible verse or verses would be good enough. I know your 'logic' tells you it wouldn't be, but we're talking about a biblical story to begin with here.

Also, while you would think 40 years is long enough, look at the Hebrews leaving Egypt to go to Canaan. It took them 40 years just to get that far.

What are you wittering on about?

Originally posted by sonship
Not answering for Suzzaine either.

Who?

Originally posted by sonship

if the flood was local then wouldnt it be pointless to build an ark? in the time it took to build a man could just walk to higher ground. there would also be no need for the animals to be saved, they would do better fleeing a local flood than being stuck in a floating timber yard for weeks on end.

Not answering for Suzzaine either.

...[text shortened]... under appreciate. I won't write about it here. Long enough.

No snoring aloud !

isnt the purpose of the flood to rid the world of evil and the purpose of the ark to save noah and his family? if its a world wide flood then building a big ship is logical, if its a local flood then building a mini-van would be a better choice. seems a bit extreme that not only does noah have to deal with the knowledge that nearly everybody he knows is about to die, but he should also have to jump through series of hoops to please his god, even though he's already done amazingly well by being just about the only good guy left on a planet full of evil.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What are you wittering on about?

Oh, nice 'logic' there. That really backs up your claim well. 😵

You're sounding like robbie now when he gets confronted.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
isnt the purpose of the flood to rid the world of evil and the purpose of the ark to save noah and his family? if its a world wide flood then building a big ship is logical, if its a local flood then building a mini-van would be a better choice. seems a bit extreme that not only does noah have to deal with the knowledge that nearly everybody he knows is ...[text shortened]... lready done amazingly well by being just about the only good guy left on a planet full of evil.

Would a mini-van have kept them safe from an unruly mob demanding that he take them too?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, nice 'logic' there. That really backs up your claim well. 😵

You're sounding like robbie now when he gets confronted.

I have no idea what on earth you are talking about?! What point are you trying to make here?