Noah's Ark Found -- Again

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Actually Mr. Phoenix, it is based off of evidence, or lack there-of. There is no evidence to suggest that this flood story holds water. The only thing that can be confirmed is that a local flood occurred. (which is contrary to the biblical claim of being global).

You are assuming the Bible teaches a global flood. I don't.

Although Greentwiga does have some interesting answers, it is still all postulation. (or faith)

I totally understand that your faith dictates whether or not you are able to objectively think about the evidence. I will say, though, that it is frustrating that certain Christians will apply the utmost scrutiny to other science (evolution), yet will accept a story like this hook, line, and sinker regardless of its radical claims.

False. I used to hold to a global flood and now I hold to a local one. You yourself have no problem with a local flood. Thus, if the text can support a local flood and scientific evidence can, I see no problem with it.

You may feel free to try to convince me that the text teaches a global flood however.

[JudahsLion]

You are assuming the Bible teaches a global flood. I don't.



False. I used to hold to a global flood and now I hold to a local one. You yourself have no problem with a local flood. Thus, if the text can support a local flood and scientific evidence can, I see no problem with it.

You may feel free to try to convince me that the text teaches a global flood however.

Ok, here goes. God said he would NEVER flood the earth again.

This region has seen many floods. So, did God break His promise? Or is scripture wrong? If the flood was local, and there have been local floods afterwards, then this means God is a promise breaker.

[greentwiga]

So, the obvious conclusion is that it is ridiculous to suppose that this event, as described in Genesis, actually happened.

Was there a flood? absolutely

Was it local? absolutely

was there actually an ark? no

Did 6 people re-populate the earth? absolutely not

Note that the Bible says that after the flood, people moved east and found the land of Shinar (sumer) and settled there. They did repopulate the region.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Ok, here goes. God said he would NEVER flood the earth again.

This region has seen many floods. So, did God break His promise? Or is scripture wrong? If the flood was local, and there have been local floods afterwards, then this means God is a promise breaker.

Not at all. He kept his word. Are there some local floods? Yes. Do they last 40 days and 40 nights? No. Note what the text says. There will never be a flood to cut off all life or a flood to destroy the Earth.

That's been kept. God has never sent a flood again with the purpose of cutting off all life or destroying the Earth. (Earth is best seen as referring to the land in the text).

[JudahsLion]

Not at all. He kept his word. Are there some local floods? Yes. Do they last 40 days and 40 nights? No. Note what the text says. There will never be a flood to cut off all life or a flood to destroy the Earth.

That's been kept. God has never sent a flood again with the purpose of cutting off all life or destroying the Earth. (Earth is best seen as referring to the land in the text).

This seems a bit like "having your cake and eating it too". LOL.

Youre basically saying that God still can send floods, even floods that kill many living things, as long as he doesnt kill everything in the mesopotamia area, He's still good on His promise.

hmmm....

[JudahsLion]

Note that the Bible says that after the flood, people moved east and found the land of Shinar (sumer) and settled there. They did repopulate the region.

yeah, but if you hold to a local flood, then there were already people in Shinar. Or at least some place close by.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

This seems a bit like "having your cake and eating it too". LOL.

Youre basically saying that God still can send floods, even floods that kill many living things, as long as he doesnt kill everything in the mesopotamia area, He's still good on His promise.

hmmm....

I'm just going by what his promise was. He would never cut off all life or destroy the land. Has he?

[greentwiga]

yeah, but if you hold to a local flood, then there were already people in Shinar. Or at least some place close by.

There were people living around Baghdad and above. Below, if it was able to be farmed, it was flooded. In the Desert, it was not flooded, but those people, being nomadic herders, would not have repopulated the region of Sumer. The people of the Baghdad region would have moved eastward to repopulate the region

[rogue06]

In his March 11, 2010 broadcast of Answers, with Ken Ham the head of AnswersinGenesis answered the question “Insects–were they actually on the Ark?”

The answer, according to Ham is “No” (except as stowaways). He asserted that “most conservative scholars regard the invertebrates–those without a backbone, including insects–as not being among them.”

Of course the problem here as Genesis 7:23 makes evident:

Genesis7:23

“And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”

I’ve always thought that “creeping things” included insects.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I’ve always thought that “creeping things” included insects.

I think that refers to trolls.

[DuraGizer]

I think that refers to trolls.

GIT OFF MA ARK!

[greentwiga]

GIT OFF MA ARK!

Are trolls our ancestral memory of neanderthals?

The creeping or swarming things is modified at one point by all that has the breath of life. I would vote for lizards and snakes, but since insects breathe through spiracles, I am not sure that from the ancients point of view that they breathe. Also, since many insects could live through the flood, I lean toward no insects, except what you can't keep out.