Noah And The Great Flood

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1335333953' post='2423089']
Maybe the flood is what sank the lost city of Atlantis in one day. And maybe extraterrestrials taught Noah how to make an ark that would be bigger on the inside. If so, Genesis would be historical evidence of Gallifrey.

How'm I doing?

[/quote]
If you circle the sun in a loopy way and go back 5 or 6k years and get some guy to write that on an old scroll you'd be amazed at how many people today would believe it true. Maybe you should tell the creationists to fax you their credit card details while you're at it.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335483583' post='2423733']
If you circle the sun in a loopy way and go back 5 or 6k years and get some guy to write that on an old scroll you'd be amazed at how many people today would believe it true. Maybe you should tell the creationists to fax you their credit card details while you're at it.
[/quote]

Interesting Mark, so why do you believe in things like the Virgin Birth and resurrection? Or do you?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335483583' post='2423733']

If you circle the sun in a loopy way and go back 5 or 6k years and get some guy to write that on an old scroll you'd be amazed at how many people today would believe it true. Maybe you should tell the creationists to fax you their credit card details while you're at it.
[/quote]But when Kirk did hat he just went back to the 1980s.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335501792' post='2423848']
Interesting Mark, so why do you believe in things like the Virgin Birth and resurrection? Or do you?
[/quote]
Some things make sense and some don't. Four gospels quote Jesus' (God) depiction of the resurrection, which is very logical and very believable. I sense the existence of my own soul, (Consciousness) so it is believable for it to exist after death. A literal translation of the OT in its entirety is illogical captain! If creationism is true then all the theologans (Popes, saints, priests, whatevuh) have wasted an enormous anount of time studying the very complex, deep and multilayered meaning of scripture. Simple minds seek simple explanations, which is okay, but there is a line of logical credibility or else we will be what is commonly known as gullible! It is also illogical to argue with creationists, so I don't intend to take this further, I was just being a troll in support of my mate.
[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1335537041' post='2423923']
But when Kirk did hat he just went back to the 1980s.
[/quote]
Be imaginative, LD has some sophisticated technology.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335562703' post='2424104']
Some things make sense and some don't. Four gospels quote Jesus' (God) depiction of the resurrection, which is very logical and very believable. I sense the existence of my own soul, (Consciousness) so it is believable for it to exist after death.[/quote]

Why is it logical to believe a man was concieved via a virgin birth, and resurrected after he died? Isn't it more reasonable that these are just metaphors intended to teach us a deeper lesson?

[quote]A literal translation of the OT in its entirety is illogical captain![/quote]

I think you meant literal interpretation, but why is it that anymore illogical than interpreting the NT literally?

[quote]If creationism is true then all the theologans (Popes, saints, priests, whatevuh) have wasted an enormous anount of time studying the very complex, deep and multilayered meaning of scripture. Simple minds seek simple explanations, which is okay, but there is a line of logical credibility or else we will be what is commonly known as gullible! It is also illogical to argue with creationists, so I don't intend to take this further, I was just being a troll in support of my mate.
[/quote]

Notice that this thread is not about creationism, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335595660' post='2424310']
Why is it logical to believe a man was concieved via a virgin birth, and resurrected after he died? Isn't it more reasonable that these are just metaphors intended to teach us a deeper lesson?
[/quote]
I don't have any issues with miracles, I reckon I have seen some myself. But for Noahs flood to be literal God would have had to perform more miracles than there are animals to overcome the physical impossibilities. He could do that, but to me it would be illogical to do it that way. Why not just perform one miracle that wipes out all like the dinosaurs and then recreate?


[quote]I think you meant literal interpretation, but why is it that anymore illogical than interpreting the NT literally?[/quote]
Yes, I made a typo. I have read that there are differing styles of writing in the Bible. The older ones like Genesis, Noahs flood, Jonahs fish story and possibly some more are the most difficult to understand. Some people even suggest that the Holywood version of exodus is an exagerated colourful version. Why would people still doubt and revert to pagan gods after seeing the events of exodus as told in the Bible, literal version. It is hypothesised that in reality the miracles occured in a natural way that people could argue were coincidence or good fortune.
Even with the NT There are some quotations that seem illogical and contradictory, but are possibly situation dependant and thus cannot be given a general interpretation and need serious study. eg. In many situations turning the other cheek is not at all practical.


[quote]Notice that this thread is not about creationism, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[/quote]
I'll blame LD for that! He mentioned the two in his post. Seriously though, I consider stories that seem impossible to believe in a literal sense such as Noahs flood, Jonahs fish to belong with the creation story style of writing and thus allegories.

Besides you mentioned it.
[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335385148' post='2423311']
Im just giving the Divine Author of Genesis the benefit of the doubt
[/quote]

Edited April 28, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You know what i heard that before too, that many a culture in various parts of the world speak of a great flood. Maybe dinosaurs aren't so long ago as we may think and the flood destroyed them coz they couldn't fit in noahs ark, and whatever animals scrambled to the top of the highest mountains where saved also,including the odd human. But the big dinosaurs where to slow. By the way i'm making this whole dino bit up, just a passing thought though.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and since the rainbow was assumably the first one, than how was the earth watered before the flood? constant light rain, or fogs and dews perhaps ? Or was the rainbow not the first one and Yaweh just revealed it's true meaning that there is still hope even when all else seems lost.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335598928' post='2424315']
I don't have any issues with miracles, I reckon I have seen some myself. But for Noahs flood to be literal God would have had to perform more miracles than there are animals to overcome the physical impossibilities. He could do that, but to me it would be illogical to do it that way.[/quote]

Did you read the original post? Noah's flood was anthropologically global, it need not have been geographically global. Theres a big difference there. If the flood was early enough in human history, ie when humans were confined to one continent and the entire population was in the millions, you already avoid many of the so called classic problems.

[Quote]Why not just perform one miracle that wipes out all like the dinosaurs and then recreate?
[/Quote]

What wiped out the dinasaurs was an entirely different event.
[QUOTE]
Yes, I made a typo. I have read that there are differing styles of writing in the Bible. The older ones like Genesis, Noahs flood, Jonahs fish story and possibly some more are the most difficult to understand. Some people even suggest that the Holywood version of exodus is an exagerated colourful version. Why would people still doubt and revert to pagan gods after seeing the events of exodus as told in the Bible, literal version. It is hypothesised that in reality the miracles occured in a natural way that people could argue were coincidence or good fortune.
Even with the NT There are some quotations that seem illogical and contradictory, but are possibly situation dependant and thus cannot be given a general interpretation and need serious study. eg. In many situations turning the other cheek is not at all practical
Besides you mentioned it.
[/quote]

Sounds like you have some deep rooted doubts that need to be addressed.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335634307' post='2424394']
Did you read the original post? Noah's flood was anthropologically global, it need not have been geographically global. Theres a big difference there. If the flood was early enough in human history, ie when humans were confined to one continent and the entire population was in the millions, you already avoid [b]many [/b]of the so called classic problems.
[/quote]
A few would be a better word[b].[/b] If you get imaginative you can negate a lot. The default covers all response that you usually get is 'God can do anything'. But I'm afraid you can't overcome an overwhelming plethora of evidence against.




[quote]What wiped out the dinosaurs was an entirely different event.[/quote]
Maybe I didn't write that well. I used that as an example of mass extinction. A disruption to the biosphere wipes out nearly all life bar some which after a few millennia evolves new life. Sounds more like the present day miracles we observe. I'm not doubting the flood story.



[quote]Sounds like you have some deep rooted doubts that need to be addressed.[/quote]
You may make whatever judgements on me that you like. I assure you my faith is rock solid and I am completely unaffected by your concern. In fact I smirk and think if only you knew.
I consider my 'belief' is fact based on personal empirical evidence in which I put my trust. Did not Jesus prove himself to Thomas?

Edited April 28, 2012 by Mark of the Cross

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335650385' post='2424512']

A few would be a better word[b].[/b] If you get imaginative you can negate a lot. The default covers all response that you usually get is 'God can do anything'. But I'm afraid you can't overcome an overwhelming plethora of evidence against.
[/quote]

What issues in your mind are against it?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335650385' post='2424512']
A few would be a better word[b].[/b] If you get imaginative you can negate a lot. The default covers all response that you usually get is 'God can do anything'. But I'm afraid you can't overcome an overwhelming plethora of evidence against.





Maybe I didn't write that well. I used that as an example of mass extinction. A disruption to the biosphere wipes out nearly all life bar some which after a few millennia evolves new life. Sounds more like the present day miracles we observe. I'm not doubting the flood story.




You may make whatever judgements on me that you like. I assure you my faith is rock solid and I am completely unaffected by your concern. In fact I smirk and think if only you knew.
I consider my 'belief' is fact based on personal empirical evidence in which I put my trust. Did not Jesus prove himself to Thomas?
[/quote]So a fellow Christian expresses concern and you smirk?? nice...

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1335659864' post='2424573']
So a fellow Christian expresses concern and you smirk?? nice...
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean. I suspect that you have misinterpreted the comment. Have a nice day.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335654865' post='2424524']
What issues in your mind are against it?
[/quote]
I've just had a read of the entire thread and now I'm not sure what you are trying to convey. My attention deficit! Are you trying to match geography and anthropology to a literal Noah's flood as written in the Bible or are you saying that NF is an allegory for a feasible event matched to geography and anthropology? The latter I would be inclined to agree with.
example 1 of numerous problems or counting backwards- example 999-
LD mentioned the size of the ark. Okay, so we are talking about continents that were very close together, there are not so many animals and we don't have to worry about air-conditioning for polar bears and heating for butterflies. But what about food preservation. What did the carnivores eat when they naturally eat herbivores. In antiquity was there refrigeration? Did the ark have solar panels? nuh can't be, it was overcast. Why save a few animals and then later need to create the plethora of animals we see today that just could not cohabitate even for short periods, because of environmental issues (Polar bears and butterflies)
example 998:-
To deposit the ark several thousand metres up mount Ararat requires sufficient water such that the explanation is that continental movement closed a sea trench forcing seawater to flood all the arable land. Not an expert on earths water volume, but a current claim of finding the ark is at 4000metres. I don't think there's enough water! And in antiquity what is the climatic conditions at this altitude during cataclysmic events? It's pretty razzle dazzle up there at the mo! While we are on the subject of seawater soaking fertile soil for even say 40 days, raises salinity. Soft edible plants don't grow in saline earth and it takes considerable time for the salt to be washed back into the ocean. If sudden geological disturbances were involved we would expect numerous volcanoes to pop their tops and cause a disruption to climate for a few years. Tectonic plate movement is generally believed to be a slow process, but still causes violent eruptions and there is evidence of mass extinctions due to more severe disturbances, but due more to atmospheric disruptions rather than floods.
I'm just being imaginative here and making all this up, but I'm sure a person with the benefit of education could come up with much more concrete problems.

[mortify]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1335740885' post='2424959']
I've just had a read of the entire thread and now I'm not sure what you are trying to convey. My attention deficit! Are you trying to match geography and anthropology to a literal Noah's flood as written in the Bible or are you saying that NF is an allegory for a feasible event matched to geography and anthropology? The latter I would be inclined to agree with.[/quote]

The point is the debate has too long been between young earth creationists and liberals. The former believe the flood occurred several thousands of years ago, and the latter make Noah out to be a sea merchant stuck in a local flood. This is a false dichotomy, and if we accept an old age for the earth, there is evidence that points to an ancient calamity early in human history. I believe it's possible that the flood was the cause of this calamity, and that it would have happened some fifty thousand years ago.
[quote]
example 1 of numerous problems or counting backwards- example 999-
LD mentioned the size of the ark. Okay, so we are talking about continents that were very close together, there are not so many animals and we don't have to worry about air-conditioning for polar bears and heating for butterflies. But what about food preservation. What did the carnivores eat when they naturally eat herbivores. In antiquity was there refrigeration? Did the ark have solar panels? nuh can't be, it was overcast. Why save a few animals and then later need to create the plethora of animals we see today that just could not cohabitate even for short periods, because of environmental issues (Polar bears and butterflies)[/quote]

Presumadly animals were fed what they would have been accustomed in the wild. But God knows, since those details are not revealed.

As for the number of animals, the simple answer is that the flood did not cover every inch of land in the world, and that some animals did survive naturally.

[quote]example 998:-
To deposit the ark several thousand metres up mount Ararat requires sufficient water such that the explanation is that continental movement closed a sea trench forcing seawater to flood all the arable land. Not an expert on earths water volume, but a current claim of finding the ark is at 4000metres. I don't think there's enough water! And in antiquity what is the climatic conditions at this altitude during cataclysmic events? It's pretty razzle dazzle up there at the mo! While we are on the subject of seawater soaking fertile soil for even say 40 days, raises salinity. Soft edible plants don't grow in saline earth and it takes considerable time for the salt to be washed back into the ocean. If sudden geological disturbances were involved we would expect numerous volcanoes to pop their tops and cause a disruption to climate for a few years. Tectonic plate movement is generally believed to be a slow process, but still causes violent eruptions and there is evidence of mass extinctions due to more severe disturbances, but due more to atmospheric disruptions rather than floods.[/quote]

Right, I think too often the cataclism is associated solely with a flood, but the Bible does suggest there may have been a plate tectonic event. Although the movement of the plates is regarded as generally slow moving, we may hypothesize a Divine Act where the process was sped up so to speak. It would have contributed to the large displacement of water into land, as well as numerous erruptions. Mt Toba in Indonesia was said to have errupted some fifty plus thousand years ago, its possible the two events are connected. As for soil, I agree, there would be evidence of a large displacement of water. However, no researcher has ever thought to look at what references as 50 thousand years in the geological record, and they'd probably have to look at what we know call Africa, rather than the middle east.