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

[spinner]

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.

But here's the rub--it does require explanation. The whole story is so convincingly refuted by science, history and common sense that even if you say it was miraculous, it still begs the question of why is there so much contrary evidence? Not only would the events of the flood itself be miraculous, there would also need to be, following the flood, a miraculous destruction and alteration of evidence to make it look like it never happened.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?)

Let me try something...

Did not work here is Link see picture

[Bond...James Bond]

No of course not. I believe it's an allegorical story based on numerous other flood stories from the Fertile Crescent.

[consiglieri]

Leave the talking *** (donkey) alone. I work with one. I know it can happen.

If you keep bringing me into your threads, I'm afraid I will have to cashier you, Pa Pa.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Da Big Boss Man")

[JarMan]

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.

This comment doesn't refute my thesis one bit.

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.

I've never said it didn't happen. I've only said it didn't happen the way some people think it did. This reminds me so much of the hemispheric proponents of the Book of Mormon. You may think it happeneded one way, but if you exam the evidence in the text itself it just is not possible.

But it's still about faith.

It's about reading the text. It tells us the size of the ark and it is simply not big enough for more than just a few animals. I will post some calculations later when I have time.

[JarMan]

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.

Spinner,

I have issued several challenges about the story which have not been answered. On the other hand I have adequately answered the challenges from the global flood proponents. The truth is their best answers are "God is all powerful and can do whatever he wants but I choose to believe that he behaved the way I imagine he behaved and not the way you think he did" and "you gotta have faith" and "it happened that way, I know it did, I know it did, I know it did, so there."

[HiJolly]

No of course not. I believe it's an allegorical story based on numerous other flood stories from the Fertile Crescent.

At least the Ark is not the "worlds biggest metaphor".

World's biggest metaphor

HiJolly

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For a cynic person such as myself, it's like playing slow-pitch softball.

It is easier to hit a fast ball out of the park...whatever that means?

[T-Shirt]

What have I misrepresented?

Wow, you continue to amaze me. In a previous post you made a tacit admission that you fibbed about what the Bible actually said, and now you reverse yourself and ask what you have misrepresented.

The only thing that baffles me is that you cannot understand why a testimony is so elusive to you. Read your own writing and you will have your answer.

T-Shirt

[cinepro]

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

I would agree that it is "possible" by the strict definition of the term. I'm not going to agree that it is "reasonable" to theorize that God used countless generations of birth/death to slowly mutate animals and humans into their preordained forms, then froze them in a state of temporary immortality while Adam and Eve were in the Garden, only to return them to their birth/death evolution cycle at the fall.

The critical flaw in your theory is that evolution is never "finished", so animals (and humans) would never reach a state at which you could say evolution is finished and they are finally "created". It is an ongoing process, and it continues to this day. So by your theory, we are still in the creative period, waiting for everything to finally be "created".

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?

Please list what you would define and accept as "modern revelation" on the subject. Is revelation from 50 years ago "modern"? How about 100 years? Only living apostles?

Also, please give some examples of things that you accept as "modern revelation", and why you don't accept revelation that isn't "modern".

Thanks.

[Sevenbak]

But here's the rub--it does require explanation. The whole story is so convincingly refuted by science, history and common sense that even if you say it was miraculous, it still begs the question of why is there so much contrary evidence? Not only would the events of the flood itself be miraculous, there would also need to be, following the flood, a miraculous destruction and alteration of evidence to make it look like it never happened.

Obviously for some, there is a requirement for an merging of science and faith in order to believe. The plan of salvation was never set up that way. There is much we don't understand, and in fact, are not supposed to understand.

[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?

T-Shirt

Just a bump to give T-shirt an opportunity to provide examples of where I have misrepresented someone or something.

[T-Shirt]

Just a bump to give T-shirt an opportunity to provide examples of where I have misrepresented someone or something.

You claimed the Bible states that the flood was only fifteen cubits deep. When I pointed out that you were incorrect, you then admitted that you were aware of that fact. You were basing your argument on a misrepresentation of the Bible. Of course, you knew this already.

T-Shirt

[blackstrap]

When it comes to miracles,I have observed just a little of how the Lord works. When Lazarus was brought back to life it was interesting to see what Jesus did and did not do. He did not roll away the stone,men did. He called Lazarus to come forth,. He did not take off the bandages,men did. It seems that the Lord does what only He can do and He expects men to do what they can do.

Perhaps this has some application in Noah's flood event.

[cinepro]

You claimed the Bible states that the flood was only fifteen cubits deep. When I pointed out that you were incorrect, you then admitted that you were aware of that fact. You were basing your argument on a misrepresentation of the Bible. Of course, you knew this already.

T-Shirt

If you're referring to post #121, I was referring to the local flood-theories, which would necessarily make the 15-cubit depth the depth of the flood, because the "mountaintops" wouldn't be covered in a local flood. Obviously, the worldwide-flood theories use the Biblical depth as covering the mountains. I accurately represented the claims of some who promote a local flood theory.

But if you are going to claim that the Bible does in fact clearly state the depth of the water was 15 cubits over the mountaintops, then we would both agree that the Bible describes a worldwide flood and not a local one, which was my point in the first place.

[T-Shirt]

But if you are going to claim that the Bible does in fact clearly state the depth of the water was 15 cubits over the mountaintops, then we would both agree that the Bible describes a worldwide flood and not a local one,

Not necessarily.

T-Shirt

[cinepro]

Not necessarily.

T-Shirt

How can water from a "local" flood cover the mountaintops to a depth of 15 cubits?

Genesis 7

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

[dblagent007]

How can water from a "local" flood cover the mountaintops to a depth of 15 cubits?

The original hebrew should have been translated to hills instead of mountaintops.

[dblagent007]

There are actually many explanations of how Genesis describes a localized flood. You can find them by googling noah localized flood. Cinepro makes it sound like it is an open and shut case that the Bible describes a worldwide flood when it clearly is not (e.g., the hebrew word "erets" was translated as earth when it should have been translated as land; the hebrew word "har" was translated in some places as mountain when it should have been translated as hill).

[JarMan]

How can water from a "local" flood cover the mountaintops to a depth of 15 cubits?

The real question is how a global flood could have covered the mountain tops. Now that would be something.

It is completely conceivable that a flood could cover mountain tops, or at least large hills in the mountains. All you need is some sort of blockage in a strategic place in a watershed. A large landslide caused by an earthquake, volcanic eruption, or just really wet conditions (especially following a fire) can all cause a landslide large enough to create a natural dam. Another similar scenario is when a large lake breaks through a natural dam and causes massive flooding below.

In order for a global flood to exist, you need the entire surface area of the earth to be covered. Sorry, but there's just not enough water on and inside the earth for such a scenario.

[Kreno]

Noah's Ark was really an inter-dimensional thingy. It was bigger on the inside than on the outside.

can anybody think of anything worse than: day 40 its your turn to clean out the elephant pen on the bottom deck, that your brothers havn't cleaned for 3 days.

seriously. If the flood was totally encompassing the earth... Then explain how the giants remained on the earth. Yes, GIANTS, 30' feet tall six fingered 6 toed giants. Goliath and others.

hint: they were not of Noah's children.

its a good thing that my salvation is not hinged on such deep topics as a flood or reincarnation.

BTW where do you guys get all these cool smiley faces.

[T-Shirt]

seriously. If the flood was totally encompassing the earth... Then explain how the giants remained on the earth. Yes, GIANTS, 30' feet tall six fingered 6 toed giants. Goliath and others.

They just stood on top of the mountains.

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

How can water from a "local" flood cover the mountaintops to a depth of 15 cubits?

That all depends on where Noah lived. And, as has been pointed out, the word, "mountains" comes from the same word that is translated as, "hills" (see verse 19)

T-Shirt

[Tchild2]

There are actually many explanations of how Genesis describes a localized flood. You can find them by googling noah localized flood. Cinepro makes it sound like it is an open and shut case that the Bible describes a worldwide flood when it clearly is not (e.g., the hebrew word "erets" was translated as earth when it should have been translated as land; the hebrew word "har" was translated in some places as mountain when it should have been translated as hill).

The LDS church and all its leaders in the their officiating capacity describe it as a worldwide flood. Unequivocally so. Why do people think Cinepro is putting something heretical out here? He is giving you all the official LDS version, plain and clear. Any dissent or disagreement is not disagreement with Cinepro, but with the official LDS doctrinal position.

You apologists are the heretics in this case arguing for anything less than a global worldwide flood.

[Rob Osborn]

The flood covering the mountains in Noah's day are not the mountains we have today. The mountains of Noahs day were destroyed in the flood. The mountains we have today rose up after the flood to create a barrier for the flood waters to never cover the earth again. it is then no wonder why every major uplifted mountain chain in the world is composed of watery laid sediment!