Noah's Ark

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The logical consequences of the story of Noah's Ark are astounding if it is indeed literally true:
- Noah would have had to get all of the animals.  This includes all of the acquatic animals that live on the ocean floor.  Noah must have built one hell of a diving suit to accomplish this feat. 

The animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9: Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

---

It was only the animals that lived on land, not fish in the water:

Gen 7:21-23 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

[Gabu]

Hole closed...all animals ate plants at that time:

Gen 1:29-30 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, the transition from being herbivores to being carnivores is an awfully big one.  Did lions, and tigers, etc. all of a sudden just decide to eat meat?

This is another big deus ex machina - "Oh, there's no problem; we'll just have there be no carnivorous animals until after the flood!  Issue solved!"

Also, if God killed everything, but only mammals and birds were saved by Noah, where did lizards, amphibians, and acquatic animals come from?

[Gabu]

The animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9: Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

I'll repeat my other question: if God could do all this, why couldn't he just wave a magic wand and eliminate the need for the ark entirely?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That works if you choose to reject all science and believe in fundie literalist garbage that flies in the face of all science and logic today, along with that evolution never happens and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Luckily my church is enlightened enough not to.

NEWS FLASH:  The writers of the bible interpreted the account literally.  There is absolutely no biblical basis to NOT consider the flood literal.

---

As far as science is concerned - science looks for natural explanations and has come up with a time frame 13.7 billion years.

IF the bible were trying to say that the universe is due to natural phenomenon that only required 6000 years to reach the current result, THEN the bible would be in conflict with science.

But the bible is NOT trying to point to nature as the cause of all things, rather it points to God.

So, if someone were to ask me: "How long, jmfcst, would it take for natural forces to duplicate the results currently seen?"  I would answer, "Probably around 13.7 billion years!"

But there is another possibility:  The current state of things are due to SUPERnatural forces, not natural forces.

As we have already discussed in another thread, all scientific data supports the need for a supernatural force for the universe to exist.  So why couldn't God have simply made the universe 6000 years ago, and made in the condition we currently observe?  
Such an idea is not contrary to science; scientists are simply looking for causes they can observe.  It would be a tad difficult for science to use its wisdom look for God since God can not be observed through human wisdom:

1Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Furthermore, the bible actually claims that God is purposely frustrating those who reject his testimony:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Isa 29:14; 1Cor 1:19)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9: Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

I'll repeat my other question: if God could do all this, why couldn't he just wave a magic wand and eliminate the need for the ark entirely?

God could have done it anyway he wanted, but he chose an ark. 

In choosing an ark, he also taught us many lessons:

1) Noah's salvation required believing God's warning that a flood would destroy the earth.
2) Noah's salvation required Noah's obedience to God in building the ark.
3) The Ark had ONLY one door, symbolic of salvation only through Jesus - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
4)  The same day Noah entered the ark, the Flood came and God’s wrath destroyed the world…it will be the same on the day the church is Raptured and the wrath of God falls on those left on the earth.
5)  Noah was saved through water, just as believers are saved through water baptism.
6)  God is the one who closed the door on the ark (Gen 7:16), it is God who decides when the opportunity for salvation is closed.
7)  God waited for Noah to finish the ark, showing God’s patience with us.
8 )  etc, etc, etc

I could name at least a couple of dozen other lessons from the story of the Flood, but you get the point.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

As an agnostic, I'm open to anything, but the story of Noah's Ark really seems to be a mythological interpretation of the floods many of the early river valley civilizations would experience during large rainstorms.  In fact, an almost exact copy of the story of Noah can be seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around the same time as the Old Testament.  Not only that, but it was certainly impossible for one man to bring all the species of the Earth onto one boat, considering that no one in the Middle East knew anything about the western continents. 

Noah didn't bring the animals to the ark, the animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

So I guess the North American moose population swam across the great seas to Noah's house.  Can we come back to reality yet jm?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ooops,  almost forgot one of the most important parallels:

Since Noah’s salvation through water symbolizes baptism, and since baptism is a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ, Noah’s entry into and exit out of (after the flood) the ark, makes the ark symbolic of a COFFIN and entry into and out of it is symbolic of death and resurrection.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So I guess the North American moose population swam across the great seas to Noah's house.  Can we come back to reality yet jm?

The bible doesn't say where they were before they came to Noah.  But I think it is safe to say that God specially prepared the animals that came to Noah, just as God prepared the fish that swallowed Jonah:

Jonah 1:17  "The LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights."

To say that God, who created the whole universal, can’t provide animals and bring them to Noah is silly.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you believe in evolution?

If not, the transition from being herbivores to being carnivores is an awfully big one.  Did lions, and tigers, etc. all of a sudden just decide to eat meat?

This is another big deus ex machina - "Oh, there's no problem; we'll just have there be no carnivorous animals until after the flood!  Issue solved!"

Have you read the bible?  If so, you would know that the bible does change the diet of man and animals IMMEDIATELY after the flood:

Gen 9:1-5 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal.”

Just as Noah was given meat to eat following the flood, the last statement “I will demand an accounting from every animal” shows that the animals also became carnivores.

Like I have said, the bible has every argument covered!

---

Also, when Christ returns and rules the earth for 1000 years, there is evidence that animals will resort to being herbivores once again:

Isaiah 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox,

---

Also, if God killed everything, but only mammals and birds were saved by Noah, where did lizards, amphibians, and acquatic animals come from?

Where did you get the idea that only mammals and birds came to the Ark?

Gen 6:20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

[J-Mann]

Ooops,  almost forgot one of the most important parallels:

Since Noah’s salvation through water symbolizes baptism, and since baptism is a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ, Noah’s entry into and exit out of (after the flood) the ark, makes the ark symbolic of a COFFIN and entry into and out of it is symbolic of death and resurrection.

A coffin?  That's a stretch, considering the ancients didn't use them, at least in the modern sense that you're implying.

Jmfcst, I don't understand one thing -- people of great faith are usually quite adept at reconciling faith and science.  While you don't have to readily accept evolution now, you've got to admit that science itself has disproven and trumped a lot of other once-common beliefs, like that of a geocentric universe.  I doubt anyone can still make a good case for that, or for disbelieving the existence of, say, gravity.

Religion, jmfcst, has only managed to survive because it adapts.  That's not to say that God doesn't exist or the underlying principles of religious teachings are untrue -- I happen to believe they're very true.  But I also recognize that a Christianity as it was in the 15th century would be unable to exist today (save for a few radicals).  Do you honestly think that a Christianity that denies progressive science can continue to exist and grow?

There's nothing wrong with reconciling faith and science.  St. Albert is an ancient example of early attempts to do so.  How, exactly, are the stories of the Old Testament cheapened if they're not literal?  Do the lessons not still apply or the stories not still ring true?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A coffin?  That's a stretch, considering the ancients didn't use them, at least in the modern sense that you're implying.
 

coffin = tomb or whatever other name you want to apply to it.

The entrance into ark symbolized their death to the world and their exiting symbolized they were given a new life.

---

Jmfcst, I don't understand one thing -- people of great faith are usually quite adept at reconciling faith and science.

So, how does a “Christian” reconcile their faith with science, when science claims it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been resurrected from the dead?

Does the Christian then agrees with science that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead?  If so, they are certainly NOT Christian.

---

Actually, I am in agreement with science!  For I agree that Jesus could NOT have rose from the dead based on any observable force in nature.

But the bible is NOT attempting to claim his resurrection was the result of natural forces.  Rather, the bible is claiming is was a supernatural event.

Therefore, there is no contradiction with science.  And this is what YOU are having a hard time understanding.

---

While you don't have to readily accept evolution now, you've got to admit that science itself has disproven and trumped a lot of other once-common beliefs

Then you should have no problem naming a single teaching of the bible that science has disproven!

---

like that of a geocentric universe.

Where, EXACTLY, in the bible does it teach that the earth is the center of the universe?

---

I doubt anyone can still make a good case for that, or for disbelieving the existence of, say, gravity.

Where, EXACTLY, in the bible does it teach that there is no such thing as gravity?

---

Religion, jmfcst, has only managed to survive because it adapts.

I strive to believe the EXACT same things as the writers of the bible.  Give me one example where I have “adapted” my beliefs in a way that doesn’t match the viewpoints of the writers of the bible.

The faith that is described in the bible has had no reason to “adapt”.

---

But I also recognize that a Christianity as it was in the 15th century would be unable to
exist today (save for a few radicals).

I try to copy the pattern that laid down 2000 years ago, not the one that existed 500 years ago.

---
 

Do you honestly think that a Christianity that denies progressive science can continue to exist and grow?

You’re falsely assuming my science is somehow different than modern science.

----

There's nothing wrong with reconciling faith and science.  St. Albert is an ancient example of early attempts to do so. 

Why do you not understand that God shaped this creation and his message in such a way so that it would seem “foolish” to the world?  Doesn’t the bible plainly say that since the world’s wisdom can NOT recognize God, it pleased God to fashion a plan of salvation which the world would view as “foolish”?

Isn’t that the reason why you are debating with me, because you think I am “foolish” to believe the account of the bible because you find the accounts of the bible too foolish to take as literal?

---

How, exactly, are the stories of the Old Testament cheapened if they're not literal?  Do the lessons not still apply or the stories not still ring true?

1) If you can’t take the story of the Flood as literal, what basis do you have to believe that God put on the flesh of a literally man, literally died, and was literally resurrected?

2) Show me where the bible treats the account of Creation any differently than any other historical account of scripture?  For example, does the bible treat the account of the Flood any differently than the account of King David’s reign?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How, exactly, are the stories of the Old Testament cheapened if they're not literal? 

One HUGE problem with NOT taking the accounts literally is that 2 of the 4 gospels trace Jesus’ lineage back through the characters of the Old Testament all the way down to Adam. (See Matthew 1  and Luke 3).

How can a Christian accept Jesus’ genealogy yet reject the accounts of the people within his lineage?

It is EXTREMELY clear that Matthew and Luke (who also wrote the book of Acts) accepted Jesus’ genealogy as LITERAL and used it to prove that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

I choose to side with the opinion of Matthew and Luke.

[J. J.]

I'm sure that something happened -- there are a great many flood myths throughout historical cultures, such as the Gilgamesh Epic of the great deluge.  This event was probably big enough to affect many cultures throughout the Mesopotamian region, and a flood that devastated the fertile crescent is not out of the question.  So far as Western writing is concerned, that would have been "the world" at the time that we traditionally date Noah as living in, so the stories are probably not out of line calling it a worldwide flood.

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.  In the Bible, it effectively makes a point (as someone earlier pointed out that parables do), and perhaps all it amounted to in reality was a farmer gathering his livestock (maybe two of each so as to start new herds, flocks, etc.) and family into a hastily built boat in order to escape a flood, which subsequently wiped out his villiage (and possibly all of the surrounding villiages and/or most of Mesopotamia). 

Agreed, but the flooding may have not been limited to Mesopotamia or even the Mediterranean basin.  There is evidence of multiple flooding due to glacial dams failing in Washington.  Perhaps Alcon can describe the topography of the eastern part of his state.

[Joe Republic]

This article might be worth the time taken to read it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This article might be worth the time taken to read it.

You could also produce just as much data showing that Jesus' resurrection was impossible.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. " (1Cor 1:21)

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that God's intention was to make the message of salvation "foolish" to unbelievers.

[John Dibble]

This article might be worth the time taken to read it.

You could also produce just as much data showing that Jesus' resurrection was impossible.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. " (1Cor 1:21)

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that God's intention was to make the message of salvation "foolish" to unbelievers.

So in other words, your God likes irrational people who switch off their brains. There's no evidence of a global scale flood, it's pretty much impossible to put two of every land-dwelling species and enough food to feed them for the 40 days and nights plus the time it took for things to dry out on a boat of the size specified, along with the various other problems this scenario imposes - yet your God expects us to put all the reasoning power that he gave us to waste and simply take what some book says as fact even though known facts contradict what the book says. Yeah, that's some God you've got there, real wise guy alright.

I find this philosophy to be a far better one:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[Gabu]

This article might be worth the time taken to read it.

You could also produce just as much data showing that Jesus' resurrection was impossible.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. " (1Cor 1:21)

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that God's intention was to make the message of salvation "foolish" to unbelievers.

So, basically, God dislikes intelligent, rational people and wants them all sent to hell?

Nice guy.

It's quite the useful thing for believers to be able to just explain away anything that doesn't make sense by just pointing to God and saying, "well, he can do anything, so there".  Of course, I have to wonder whether you would prefer it if scientists just sat back and said, "well, God does everything, so there's no point examining anything critically".  I can only imagine how advanced our civilization would be if they did that!  Then there's the issue regarding how God conveniently decided to stop intervening in people's everyday life before any of us came into existence... but oh well, we mere mortals simply can't understand it, but we know that it's true nonetheless, right?