Do You Believe The â??biblical Accountâ?�?

[Bender]

JarMan Posted Today, 08:43 PM

I don't think Noah needed the ark to save the animals from extinction. I think he needed to save the animals so that he had something to eat after the flood. That's why he needed seven of the clean ones, I would guess.

I think it would have taken a lot less time and resources moving the animals you needed to higher ground than building a big boat. I've yet to see a good explanation for building a boat for a local flood that Noah apparently had enough warning in advance to move his family and animals to safety

[JarMan]

I think it would have taken a lot less time and resources moving the animals you needed to higher ground than building a big boat. I've yet to see a good explanation for building a boat for a local flood that Noah apparently had enough warning in advance to move his family and animals to safety:sorry:

Depends how big a "local" flood is. Certainly you can imagine a big enough flood where moving isn't the best option.

[JarMan]

If it was indeed just a local flood, that's one BIIIIIIIG local flood.

Ether 13: 2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Are you sure that scripture is referring to the flood in Noah's time? Doesn't that also match the description of the creation of the earth? It could also easily refer to any other separate flood on that land.

[JarMan]

Sorry for the triple post, but . . . how do we explain how all of the animals fit on the ark? The ark seems just big enough for a small family and their flocks to subsist for a year or so. I've been trying my best to answer the challenges of others, but nobody seems interested in answering mine.

[Sevenbak]

Are you sure that scripture is referring to the flood in Noah's time? Doesn't that also match the description of the creation of the earth? It could also easily refer to any other separate flood on that land.

Any-thing's possible I suppose, but do any of the scripture describe another flood, other than Noah? That seems a stretch to make it fit a local flood scenario, especially given the other scriptures.

Remember, he's talking about the Jaredites here, and how they rejected Ether, even though the the Lord had cleansed this land from it's former inhabitants through the flood.

[Bender]

JarMan Posted Today, 09:37 PM

Depends how big a "local" flood is. Certainly you can imagine a big enough flood where moving isn't the best option.

No actually I can't. How long does it take Noah to build a boat the size described in Genesis? Even a small boat would have taken months or more probably years to make. He could have moved a very long distance in that time (I would guess 1000's of Miles). Also are we looking at the middle east for Noah or here in the Americas. There really isn't any habital area large enough that a small group and there animals couldn't traverse in a matter of months to get to higher ground.

[Sevenbak]

Sorry for the triple post, but . . . how do we explain how all of the animals fit on the ark? The ark seems just big enough for a small family and their flocks to subsist for a year or so. I've been trying my best to answer the challenges of others, but nobody seems interested in answering mine.

I'm not sure where you get the idea it was so small, for just a small family. Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); 1. and a third football fields. It's width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters).

That's a mighty big boat for a little localized flood.

[JarMan]

No actually I can't. How long does it take Noah to build a boat the size described in Genesis? Even a small boat would have taken months or more probably years to make. He could have moved a very long distance in that time (I would guess 1000's of Miles). Also are we looking at the middle east for Noah or here in the Americas. There really isn't any habital area large enough that a small group and there animals couldn't traverse in a matter of months to get to higher ground.

So you're saying Noah could have taken his family along with all of his flocks and herds thousands of miles away into a strange land. Then waited a year for the flood waters to recede. Then travel thousands of miles back to his home land, once again with his family, flocks and herds. And this is supposed to be easier than building a giant boat? Sorry, but if I'm Noah and I have a life span of hundreds of years, the ark option seems a lot less risky to me.

[JarMan]

I'm not sure where you get the idea it was so small, for just a small family. Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); 1. and a third football fields. It's width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters).

That's a mighty big boat for a little localized flood.

Actually I think it was a large localized flood.

And that really is not a very large boat. Seriously, it's not. Do you have any idea how much food and water a single cow needs for a year? Depending on the extent of Noah's flocks, I could easily see how they might fit snugly into the ark.

But what I can't fathom, is how literally every animal on earth could have fit onto the ark along with food and water for a year. (What did they feed the polar bears?)

[Bender]

JarMan Posted Today, 10:12 PM

So you're saying Noah could have taken his family along with all of his flocks and herds thousands of miles away into a strange land. Then waited a year for the flood waters to recede. Then travel thousands of miles back to his home land, once again with his family, flocks and herds. And this is supposed to be easier than building a giant boat? Sorry, but if I'm Noah and I have a life span of hundreds of years, the ark option seems a lot less risky to me.

Why not? Nomadic cultures have doing it for 1000's of years before and after Noah. Also the 1000's of miles was a guess of how far his group could have traveled in a matter of many months, not how far they would need to get to high enough ground. This ship would need to be very big to take his family, animals and all the feed necessary. That takes a lot of time(years) and resources that would be better spent moving out of the way. Not to mention a lot safer.

[Bender]

JarMan Posted Today, 10:20 PM

Actually I think it was a large localized flood.

And that really is not a very large boat. Seriously, it's not. Do you have any idea how much food and water a single cow needs for a year? Depending on the extent of Noah's flocks, I could easily see how they might fit snugly into the ark.

But what I can't fathom, is how literally every animal on earth could have fit onto the ark along with food and water for a year. (What did they feed the polar bears?)

A single Cow can eat an awful lot of feed and water in one year. Call up a local rancher and ask them.

[cinepro]

Good grief! Sometimes I think you are rather bright and clever, and at other times you seem to be so clueless. I don't know if, this time, you are truly clueless, feigning ignorance or hoping that others are too ignorant to know any better, in order to further your work of mockery.

I am quite certain that you are perfectly aware that the verses to which you are referring mean that the water was fifteen cubits above the mountain tops. If not, then that would partly explain your problem.

Nevertheless, I am completely aware that even if you concede your ignorance on this matter, scratching this one item off your list of talking points will not deter your mission, there are plenty more items on your list yet to work with.

Best,

T-Shirt

Sorry, I'm already ahead of you on this. I have brought that up before, and was told that the 15 cubits was the depth of the water for the local flood, so I was responding to that. If that was the water over the tops of the mountains, then it wasn't a local flood. Either way, it's a preposterous proposition; I just need people to be clearer on which preposterous proposition they are promoting before I respond. Threads like this can be confusing when you have two different versions of the story being argued.

So I agree with you that the Bible is describing a global flood in which the water covers the mountains by at least 15 cubits. I'm not sure we agree on whether or not the Bible is accurately reporting the event.

[Connolly]

I am not a creationist in the usual sense of the word, but I do believe the Biblical account of Noah's flood. I think that the earth had to be baptized in order to achieve a celestial glory, just as we must.

So the moon, Mars, Venus, and Jupiter are damned, despite the fact that they obey the laws of gravity and orbital mechanics as precisely as does the Earth. I know what some GA's have said about baptizing the Earth - and I'm not buying it.

[JarMan]

Why not? Nomadic cultures have doing it for 1000's of years before and after Noah.

Have agricultural cultures been doing it for 1000's of years before and after Noah?

Also the 1000's of miles was a guess of how far his group could have traveled in a matter of many months, not how far they would need to get to high enough ground. This ship would need to be very big to take his family, animals and all the feed necessary. That takes a lot of time(years) and resources that would be better spent moving out of the way. Not to mention a lot safer.

I think you've grossly underestimated just how difficult this would have actually been to do. In the 1800's when people herded flocks across western North America it was extremely dangerous. Many people were killed by natives, died of disease, exposure, starvation, and a horde of other causes. Their flocks were stolen and scattered and what few women they had were sometimes abducted. (Or so it was in the Larry McMurtry novels I've read. ) I don't argue that it would have taken many years to build the ark. But I do think it would be much less risky since the biggest danger seems to be the mockery of the neighbors and the occasional carpentry accident. What if it it took 50 or 100 years? It still seems to be the safest option to me.

A single Cow can eat an awful lot of feed and water in one year. Call up a local rancher and ask them.

That's precisely my point. I think Noah's family and flocks would have fit snugly into the ark. Start adding the elephants, hippopotamuses, and giraffes and you quickly run out of space. (Do you know how much food and water a single elephant requires in a year?)

[Connolly]

I think we may all do well to review the Creation excerpt (especially the Points to Ponder which quotes heavily from the works of Professor Coffin) from the Old Testament CES manual. Now, this is a manual approved by the Church I hasten to add...

And something entirely different is taught at Brigham Young University in geology classes and biology classes, where a four and a half billion year old Earth is taught and evolution is taught, and students are given a packet of information designed to help them sort through fact and what Brigham Young himself called "baby stories."

[Sevenbak]

That's precisely my point. I think Noah's family and flocks would have fit snugly into the ark. Start adding the elephants, hippopotamuses, and giraffes and you quickly run out of space. (Do you know how much food and water a single elephant requires in a year?)

[Sevenbak]

That's precisely my point. I think Noah's family and flocks would have fit snugly into the ark. Start adding the elephants, hippopotamuses, and giraffes and you quickly run out of space. (Do you know how much food and water a single elephant requires in a year?)

Well, if it's not too hard for God to let the lion eat straw like the ox, who's to say they all didn't eat fish. At the very least, all the meat eaters. The ark was large enough to store all kinds of food, but what's to say they didn't catch more along the way. It was the Lords will that they all survive the deluge, afterall. If Christ can help Peter catch a netfull, why not Noah?

Or better yet, if you believe it wasn't too hard for the Lord to feed thousands in the desert with Manna and water from a rock, what's to say he couldn't keep creation alive any way he chose.

It's about faith people. It's a real event, it happened, it's thought the scriptures, thorough legends from every continent. The flood happened.

But it's still about faith.

[Bender]

JarMan Posted Today, 10:57 PM

Have agricultural cultures been doing it for 1000's of years before and after Noah?

Heres a link on the subject. Nomad Oh and btw see your post below. WoW you answered your own question.

JarMan Posted Today, 10:57 PM

I think you've grossly underestimated just how difficult this would have actually been to do. In the 1800's when people herded flocks across western North America it was extremely dangerous. Many people were killed by natives, died of disease, exposure, starvation, and a horde of other causes. Their flocks were stolen and scattered and what few women they had were sometimes abducted. (Or so it was in the Larry McMurtry novels I've read. rolleyes.gif) I don't argue that it would have taken many years to build the ark. But I do think it would be much less risky since the biggest danger seems to be the mockery of the neighbors and the occasional carpentry accident. What if it it took 50 or 100 years? It still seems to be the safest option to me.

How would you know that? Yes moving across the plains was dangerous, and some people died. Many survived though. Lehi and his group survived, why not Noah's (he was supposed to have God on his side).

That's precisely my point. I think Noah's family and flocks would have fit snugly into the ark. Start adding the elephants, hippopotamuses, and giraffes and you quickly run out of space. (Do you know how much food and water a single elephant requires in a year?)

A very big ark. I'm not disagreeing with you on the impossibilities of a Global flood, but a local one. Problem is the story just doesn't fit Noah bringing only his own flocks.

[Ron Beron]

(What did they feed the polar bears?)

Hint: Originally the crew was actually 20.

[Sevenbak]

Hint: Originally the crew was actually 20.

That's what all his concubines were for.

Oops, wrong thread...

[T-Shirt]

Sorry, I'm already ahead of you on this. I have brought that up before, and was told that the 15 cubits was the depth of the water for the local flood, so I was responding to that. If that was the water over the tops of the mountains, then it wasn't a local flood. Either way, it's a preposterous proposition; I just need people to be clearer on which preposterous proposition they are promoting before I respond. Threads like this can be confusing when you have two different versions of the story being argued.

So I agree with you that the Bible is describing a global flood in which the water covers the mountains by at least 15 cubits. I'm not sure we agree on whether or not the Bible is accurately reporting the event.

So, help me out here, is your penchant for intentionally misrepresenting things in your childish little game of mockery and cynicism, somehow, therapeutic for you? Are your three hours of church each week so excruciating that you need a week of anonymous mockery to release all that tension that gets bottled up not being able to speak your mind at church? I know that you say you get your temple recommend without lying and that your bishop is aware of your doubts, but I wonder, have you willingly shown your blog or your posts on this board to your bishop?

T-Shirt

[cinepro]

So, help me out here, is your penchant for intentionally misrepresenting things in your childish little game of mockery and cynicism, somehow, therapeutic for you? Are your three hours of church each week so excruciating that you need a week of anonymous mockery to release all that tension that gets bottled up not being able to speak your mind at church? I know that you say you get your temple recommend without lying and that your bishop is aware of your doubts, but I wonder, have you willingly shown your blog or your posts on this board to your bishop?

T-Shirt

What have I misrepresented? Honestly, I'm not creative enough to come up with anything sillier than the local flood theories. You give me too much credit. And the worldwide flood theories are just what they are. It's almost impossible to misrepresent them, since they are explained so clearly by the Church itself. So I'm mystified by your post. In fact, I think I've quoted more scriptures and church materials on the subject than anyone who is actually trying to defend the story. That should tell you something.

And I rarely "mock" what I hear at Church for those three hours. I'm usually mocking crackpot theories that others on this board are promoting. Trust me, the only thing funnier than the stuff I hear at Church is the stuff that apologists are coming up with these days. Pre-adamites? Brilliant. Local flood? Precious. For a cynic person such as myself, it's like playing slow-pitch softball.

[spinner]

Well, if it's not too hard for God to let the lion eat straw like the ox, who's to say they all didn't eat fish. At the very least, all the meat eaters. The ark was large enough to store all kinds of food, but what's to say they didn't catch more along the way. It was the Lords will that they all survive the deluge, afterall. If Christ can help Peter catch a netfull, why not Noah?

So the question I'm still waiting for a response to from all the floodists is how did the fish and other aquatic life survive? Frsehwater species can't live in saltwater and vice versa, but a global deluge would undoubtedly have significantly altered the salinity of both the oceans and the earth's lakes and streams.

Also, just curious who got the job of classifying millions of species of insects (a job that is tough for legions of taxonomists to get straight) and then going out into the world to collect them? Would you want to be the guy responsible for collecting 12,000 species of ants or 350,000+ species of beetles? (Not to mention taking them back to their home continents after the flood.)

Ark defenders are left with what you have retreated to: it was miraculous and defies explanation.

[BCSpace]

Pre-adamites? Brilliant.

Indeed. Since we know there was a creative state before the state of no death, this is reasonable.

Local flood? Precious.

Is there any modern revelation on the subject? Or is there a traditional view, among several other possibilities, that the bretheren subscribe to and teach as doctrine until there is more info given?

[Sevenbak]

Ark defenders are left with what you have retreated to: it was miraculous and defies explanation.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner! Alex, show that man what he's won.

It needs no explanation, because we don't have all the details, and are just guessing at best. But it was real.