Originally posted by menace71Clearly it's a myth - probably based on Sumerian and/or Babylonian flood stories if my memory serves me correctly.
Myth? Legend? What do you all think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark
Seems very interesting either way.
Manny
The reality of a global flood beggars the physics of planets, and the human race descending from one family and their kids? I don't think so.
And that's ignoring the hilarious attempts to figure out how all 5 to 30 million species currently alive could actually fit on it, and let's not go down the path of considering extinct species.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIs it really a good story?
It's a good story. So is Peter Pan.
Doesn't have much substance to it: no really meaty plot, just a guy building a boat and then lots of water; no great resolution, the water dries up; and what's the moral or point of the story, build a boat and survive a flood?
Give me Peter Pan any day ...
Originally posted by amannionyeah i agree with amannion. noah's story is brutal.
Is it really a good story?
Doesn't have much substance to it: no really meaty plot, just a guy building a boat and then lots of water; no great resolution, the water dries up; and what's the moral or point of the story, build a boat and survive a flood?
Give me Peter Pan any day ...
-a global genocide because the people are bad? one single good man worthy of saving?
-what about the children of the world? were they bad too? if noah was the only decent man on earth, how come his wife and his 3 sons along with their wives were saved too? seems there were indeed others not quite as noble as noah but close.
-and what does god have noah do? rather than help others, he builds a ship and hides when the devastation comes. -also it is a story of god being lazy: rather than just saying: all you wicked bitches die now, he conjures a magical flood that will not only kill the guilty, but all the innocents, all the animals, destroy most of the flora, destroy the dinosaurs(sarcastic wink) and the rest.
-also the story of the crow and the dove really doesn't make sense. i can understand the crow not returning because it found corpses, but where did the dove get that olive branch?
-by the way, what did the tigers and lions eat on the arc? where they on vegan diet and did they enjoy it?
i don't like noah's story. i would more enjoy Harry Potter
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe story of Noah and the flooding and the evil of god would be a brutal story - if it was true. It's not. It's a story. As Peter Pan.
yeah i agree with amannion. noah's story is brutal.
-a global genocide because the people are bad? one single good man worthy of saving?
-what about the children of the world? were they bad too? if noah was the only decent man on earth, how come his wife and his 3 sons along with their wives were saved too? seems there were indeed others not quite as no ...[text shortened]... an diet and did they enjoy it?
i don't like noah's story. i would more enjoy Harry Potter
Originally posted by FabianFnasit doesn't have to be true to be brutal. fiction can be brutal. and comparing it with peter pan is like comparing apples with oranges. sure they are both fruits but thats about it.
The story of Noah and the flooding and the evil of god would be a brutal story - if it was true. It's not. It's a story. As Peter Pan.
One of the major philosophical issues with the Noah story is there is a God who apparently can cause a pair of each animal in the world to trek to Noahs ark, can cause those animals to survive the ark, can cause a global flood, can restore the world to its former glory (replant all the plants etc in time to feed the animals) and so on, yet the obvious and much simpler solution for such an all powerful God would have been to simply kill all the naughty people.
A really clever God could have done it by simply creating a nasty virus and making Noah and family immune.
He supposedly had no problem killing off first borns in Egypt.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWe can still compare them.
it doesn't have to be true to be brutal. fiction can be brutal. and comparing it with peter pan is like comparing apples with oranges. sure they are both fruits but thats about it.
You compare them by brutality, I compare them by truthfullness.
Posted by Galvestone in another thread as evidence for the flood. Thought it would be more relevant in a thread about Noah's Ark.
I'm still at work but I'll answer the one about the flood because it's easy. Scientist say that the water we have on earth today including underground, ice caps and in the atmosphere is still the same amount that has always been. Agree?
So is it not possible that the water was stored somewhat differently then we see it today? The Bible actually answers that in Genesis.
One huge source of the waters for Noah’s flood was from heaven or to us an area above the earth. Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously. So for the amount of water it would take to rain for that amount of time would be more then the normal amount of moisture that is in our atmosphere today. During the creation of the earth Genesis 1:6 describes a watery division with an expanse in between where the surface of the earth would be. So there were oceans at that time but no doubt in a smaller scale then today.
Also the earth was no doubt flatter then after the flood. That's why they are able to find ocean life fossils on Mt. Everest as well as other high mountains around the world. They were once at or below the sea level at that time.
But with the tremendous amount of weight that the floods waters would place on the surface of the earth and with some areas of the earth's mantel being weaker then others, that would cause many areas to sink and many other areas to rise. That's how the mountains we see today have grown to such great heights.
I read once that if the earth was totally flat, that the oceans would completely cover the earth under a depth of around 200", I believe. I could be wrong with that number but the point is it would completely cover the earth.
Also I found this about the water under the surface of the earth.
"The Genesis account speaks of that water coming to the surface to add to the flood waters.Now that the question of where the water came from is cleared up, the next question is, where did it all go? This is actually quite simple, thanks to the work of a group of Japanese scientists at the Tokyo Institute of technology. The December 1999 edition of Discover magazine reported their incredible find. With no intention of helping creationism, they inadvertently discovered that the earth’s mantle is soaking up the world’s oceans at the rate of a billion tons of water a year! The soluble, permeable rock of the lower crust and upper mantle are soaking up the oceans like a sponge. If this trend of a billion tons of water a year has been continuing since the Flood, an amazing sum of 5 x 1012, or 5,000,000,000,000, or 5 TRILLION TONS of water have been absorbed in the last five thousand years. To put this into more understood terms, since a gallon of water weighs a couple, say four, pounds, in the last five thousand years, the earth has absorbed 5,000,000,000,000,000, or 5 QUADRILLION GALLONS of water! Of course the water from the Flood wouldn’t be here today!"
Interesting stuff. So the amount of water is on this planet and more then enough for God to use to flood it.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAll from rain and underwater springs. Who would've thought?
Posted by Galvestone in another thread as evidence for the flood. Thought it would be more relevant in a thread about Noah's Ark.
I'm still at work but I'll answer the one about the flood because it's easy. Scientist say that the water we have on earth today including underground, ice caps and in the atmosphere is still the same amount that has always ...[text shortened]... the amount of water is on this planet and more then enough for God to use to flood it.
Originally posted by Proper KnobActually no, all those calculations etc were totally unnecessary. Approximately 71% of the earth surface if covered by oceans today - in some places quite deep. All it would take is a little flatter continents and a slight shift in the ocean floor and the world could be flooded.
Interesting stuff. So the amount of water is on this planet and more then enough for God to use to flood it.
But all that highlights one of the biggest contradictions when it comes to creationists.
They talk over and over about miracles, and then proceed to try and show that everything is physically possible. Either the flood was a miracle or it wasn't, why would a creationist spend so much time trying to show that it wasn't a miracle - seems irrational to me.
Originally posted by menace71other Biblical figures attest to the authenticity of Noah and its account, Peter and Christ himself , just by way of example.
Myth? Legend? What do you all think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark
Seems very interesting either way.
Manny
(Matthew 24:36-42) “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
what shall those who profess to be Christian do? state that Christ himself was a liar? that cannot be! that Christ was merely using the account in an allegorical sense? that cannot be either for he held that Gods word was truth. Therefore if you aqre a professing Christian it seems quite clear and plain that you must accept that either the flood happened or Christ is talking nonsense.
(Hebrews 11:7) 7 By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world, and he became an heir of the righteousness that is according to faith.
this time its Paul reiterating the validity of the Noah account, specifically detailing that Noah indeed built an ark.
thirdly, Peter draws a comparison between a doomed generation and the generation of Noah's time,
(2 Peter 2:5) . . .he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people;
what are those who profess to be Christians going to do, it was clearly accepted by Christ, taught be the apostles, recorded under inspiration in Gods word the Bible, and we have not even touched upon the other evidence for its validity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieand we have not even touched upon the other evidence for its validity
other Biblical figures attest to the authenticity of Noah and its account, Peter and Christ himself , just by way of example.
(Matthew 24:36-42) “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they ...[text shortened]... in Gods word the Bible, and we have not even touched upon the other evidence for its validity.
I'm all ears!!!