Did Noah's Ark actually happen?

[pbrower2a]

Fallacy: circular reasoning.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

How would you know?

It says here, right in the Bible!

....

Your defense of the Bible is very weak. Strident, but weak.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Jmfcst, your circular reasoning is ridiculous; why should we believe anything you say? (No Bible Quotes allowed please).

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

Fallacy: circular reasoning.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

How would you know?

It says here, right in the Bible!

....

Your defense of the Bible is very weak. Strident, but weak.

Jmfcst, your circular reasoning is ridiculous; why should we believe anything you say? (No Bible Quotes allowed please).

--

After reading both of your posts, I went back and read every post of mine in this thread. 

At no time did I attempt to DEFEND the bible (as if it even needed defending).  Rather I have simply corrected misrepresentations of what it said (in the beginning of this thread) and pointed out that physical laws that are repeatable do not contradict the bible, its only the untestable assumptions of "scientists" that contradict the bible.

And, you are purposely forgetting that I didn't come to believe because someone proved to me the truth of the bible.  But rather I became a believer when I went in search for truth and God found me.  It was the action of him finding me that proved to me that he was true, and immediately all the doubts about things like Noah's Ark melted away.  Doubted stories that used to be laughable - stories like Noah's Ark - were no longer; rather the previous doubt itself became literally laughable.  So it wasn't argument that persuaded me, rather IT WAS ACTION.

Likewise, 1+1=2 is a circular argument.  Only when the concept is applied to physical interactions does it ring true.  So, Truth is determined when it is put into action.  And the bible makes the same observation:

Mat 11:19 "But wisdom is proved right by her actions"

So, since truth is determined by action, there are two forms of action that will prove the bible to be true:

1) the first is doing nothing and waiting for the bible's predicted events to come true:

Psa 105:18-19 "They bruised his feet with shackles, his neck was put in irons, 19 till what he foretold came to pass, till the word of the LORD proved him true. "

But then it is too late for the truth to benefit you.

2) the other is to put God's word into action ourselves:

Psa 34:8 "Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him."

Note, that it doesn't say to take a huge gulp, as if you suddenly had to become like the Apostle Paul.  Rather it simply says to take a taste. 

Put a small portion of God's word into action and see if it doesn't prove itself to be true.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense.

What I pointed out was that that is not evidence[/u] for the bible in itself. Just because something has not been falsified* does not make it true. Like the Flying Spaghetti monster.

(* - ... and has already been pointed out parts of the bible have been falsified, your ruminations about Noah's ark fly in the face of the mass of Geological, Geographical and Archaeological evidence of the past 200-250 years at least. Which brings us back to conspiracy metaphysics...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that the Bible must be true because of your ACTIONS in searching for the 'truth' (whatever that is) and let any doubt of anything, never mind empirical validity, be damned.

Now If I look for the Truth in find it in a snowflake which looks like the image of Jim Jones, and write a holy text for it and quote it as validity of the truth, then it is correct. Why not, it's my truth? (See I'm not that much of a postmodernist relativist, Alcon)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay then:
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
        for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred
        and twenty years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

A person who lived to 122 can somewhat contradict what is above. Personally I find most of the bible especially revelation and the prophecies alot of obscurantist and inchoate nonsense*, for it doesn't ring 'true' for me, so how is it true, is Jmfcst's standard via the mediation of Jesus the only standard of truth?

(* - Of course other parts of the bible are strongly profound, but that is not what is at issue here.)

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

(* - ... and has already been pointed out parts of the bible have been falsified, your ruminations about Noah's ark fly in the face of the mass of Geological, Geographical and Archaeological evidence of the past 200-250 years at least. Which brings us back to conspiracy metaphysics...)

how so?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that the Bible must be true because of your ACTIONS in searching for the 'truth'

no, not my action, but God's action when he found me.  you misread

---

(whatever that is) and let any doubt of anything, never mind empirical validity, be damned.

we've all ready gone over the empirical evidence from the Laws of Thermo.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay then:
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
        for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred
        and twenty years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

A person who lived to 122 can somewhat contradict what is above.

I have no idea how you interpret that to mean a 120 year lifespan, when lifespans aren't even being discussed, especially given the context that he was about to destroy the world and kill everyone but eight people.  In any case, if that is your interpretation, then you didn't need to go outside of scripture to prove it wrong, for Genesis chapter 11 has a whole list of people born AFTER the flood that lived way past 120 years.  Since it does NOT specify "lifespan", it is taken to mean the time period between God's decision to wipeout mankind and the flood.

In any case, the action I was asking you to take was putting God's word into action in your life - start living God's word and you'll find it to be true.

---

Personally I find most of the bible especially revelation and the prophecies alot of obscurantist and inchoate nonsense*, for it doesn't ring 'true' for me, so how is it true, is Jmfcst's standard via the mediation of Jesus the only standard of truth?

(* - Of course other parts of the bible are strongly profound, but that is not what is at issue here.)

The writer of Revelation probably had no clue what he was writing.

prophecy is the only part of scripture were men can actual gain knowledge as time passes, because the bible explicitly says that Daniel was troubled his lack of understanding the meaning of the prophecies he wrote, but God told him that it would be understood by those living during the time period in question.

apart from prophecy, there is no other gaining of doctrinal knowledge (unless a new covenant is made, but there will not be another covenant made prior to Jesus' return)...which is why in the nonprophetic areas, I try to stay as close to beliefs of the writers of the New Testament as possible.

If you need someone to explain Revelations to you, than I will gladly lay it out for you.  The identities of the entities I do NOT know (you'll have to ask Prophetman for that since he claims he knows), but I do have an idea of what is being portrayed since much of it is mentioned in other parts of scripture.

[Yamor]

That interpretation of Genesis 6:3 is how most Jewish commentators understand it. But how do you explain the fact that from when he had children (3 verses earlier) until the flood was only 100 years?

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

That interpretation of Genesis 6:3 is how most Jewish commentators understand it.

which interpretation, lifespan or time period until flood?

---

But how do you explain the fact that from when he had children (3 verses earlier) until the flood was only 100 years?

not sure what your question is....Gen 5 gives the genealogy of Noah and his sons and states the sons were born after Noah was 500 years old.  Then Gen 6 recounts how men had become wicked.  it was at this time God gave them 120 years [until the flood].  Noah found favor in the eyes of God so Noah was given instructions of how to save himself and his family, including his sons.  And Noah was 601 when he stepped off the ark.

If you insist that all of Gen 5, which ends with the birth of Noah's sons some time after Noah was 500 years old, then that meant Noah was already at least 500 years old when chapter 6 begins.

But the purpose of Chapter 5 is simply to establish the genealogy of Noah.  So there is no reason to think the last verse of Gen 5 chronologically precedes the first verse of Gen 6:1, which begins with "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them..."  The context of Gen 6:1 is general and does NOT assume to be in chronological order with Gen 5.  Gen 6:1 begins a new scene and could allude to anytime within the timespan of Gen 5 (much like Gen 2 begins within timeline of Gen 1, not after it).

On a similar note concerning Revelations - Much of the problem interpreting Revelation is solved by realizing it is NOT in continuous chronological order.  Rather it tells of the sequence of events in chronological order over a period of several chapters, then jumps back in time running the tape forward again but this time emphasizing a deferrent set of details (e.g. Rev ch6 through ch10 is one sequence...then chapter 11 rewinds to tell the story of the 2 witnesses and covers much of the time period already gone over in ch 6 through ch10...then ch12 jumps WAY BACK in time to Jesus' birth and runs the tape forward again...I can't remember off the top of my head if there are anymore rewinds after ch 12, it has been a while since I read Revelations from cover to cover).

[RI]

Why does no one ever listen to me?

[© tweed]

Why does no one ever listen to me?

you mean God, or your contributions in this thread?

[RI]

Why does no one ever listen to me?

you mean God, or your contributions in this thread?

I mean, people continue to debate with jmfcst depsite the fact that every argument that they use is not one that he would care about and vise versa. It is an exercise in pointlessness. 

[Yamor]

Jmfcst, I meant that they say your explanation, i.e. the verse is referring to the time period till the flood.
I totally agree with your explanation that Chapter 6 isn't starting off where 5 left off, and all the Jewish commentators understand it like that as well. I was just wondering how you understood it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does no one ever listen to me?

you mean God, or your contributions in this thread?

I mean, people continue to debate with jmfcst depsite the fact that every argument that they use is not one that he would care about and vise versa. It is an exercise in pointlessness. 

The amazing thing is how he keeps misintrepreting my posts, and ignored those bits he knows he can't argue with.

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

The amazing thing is how he keeps misintrepreting my posts, and ignored those bits he knows he can't argue with.

report your question

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

Jmfcst, I meant that they say your explanation, i.e. the verse is referring to the time period till the flood.
I totally agree with your explanation that Chapter 6 isn't starting off where 5 left off, and all the Jewish commentators understand it like that as well. I was just wondering how you understood it.

cool

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The amazing thing is how he keeps misintrepreting my posts, and ignored those bits he knows he can't argue with.

report your question

I have already stated that the laws of thermodynamics (among other things) show that the universe is not and can not be a self-generating body or purely a self-enclosed system. However that does not prove anything other than the facts I have already stated, it no furthers proves God then it proves Allah or Brahman or anything else, what it proves is that the universe is not a self-generating body and not a purely self-enclosed system. Which we agree upon. But that does not logically show the existence of the Christian God, when you try to show that it does you quote the bible, of which we have no empirical basis for knowing its connection to the knowledge of the foundation of the universe, if any, but you just assume that it does. Your argument is completely circular.

Also it has already been shown on this very thread that Noah's Ark could not possibly have happened, for all science flaws it has not shown any evidence suggesting that the great flood did happen, much on contrary all scientific evidence flies in the face of it. You are quite happy to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove your case but not geology or climatology shows that you are being ridiculously selective with facts, choosing only those does that help your argument. Also if Noah's Ark has been shown to be empirical disproved, then parts of the bible must be wrong too and can not be used literally to show anything about the nature of the universe.

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

I have already stated that the laws of thermodynamics (among other things) show that the universe is not and can not be a self-generating body or purely a self-enclosed system. However that does not prove anything other than the facts I have already stated, it no furthers proves God then it proves Allah or Brahman or anything else, what it proves is that the universe is not a self-generating body and not a purely self-enclosed system. Which we agree upon. But that does not logically show the existence of the Christian God, when you try to show that it does you quote the bible, of which we have no empirical basis for knowing its connection to the knowledge of the foundation of the universe, if any, but you just assume that it does. Your argument is completely circular.

Well, at least we agree on two things:
1) every experiment ever conducted has demonstrated that nature cannot create itself, which leaves science at a dead end.
2) God creating the universe solves problem #1

---

Also it has already been shown on this very thread that Noah's Ark could not possibly have happened, for all science flaws it has not shown any evidence suggesting that the great flood did happen, much on contrary all scientific evidence flies in the face of it. You are quite happy to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove your case but not geology or climatology shows that you are being ridiculously selective with facts, choosing only those does that help your argument. Also if Noah's Ark has been shown to be empirical disproved, then parts of the bible must be wrong too and can not be used literally to show anything about the nature of the universe.

I reject the premise of your line of reasoning:  you're looking for physical traces of the PROCESS God used, because you are ASSUMING God would want to leave physical evidence of his chosen PROCESS in order to substantiate the bible's account.  Such an assumption TOTALLY IGNORES the fact that within the biblical account themselves, you will never find traces to the process.  What you WILL find, in the biblical account and in your own natural surroundings, is the RESULT.

But if you read the account of the Flood, ONLY THE ANIMALS WERE AFFECTED, BUT THE VEGATATION WAS NOT Gen 8:11 "When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf!"

The purpose of the flood is explicitly stated:  Gen 6:7 "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

There was no intention of harming the plants, which is why God did NOT command Noah to bring plant SEED along with him, only food for the animals to eat.  No where in that statement says anything about harming the plants, which is why the dove was able to find a fresh olive leaf, even though the it have been under water for the good part of a year.

So, you're whole premise is that the flood made huge mudslides that would have destroyed all vegitation and created a great layer of mud all over the earth...IS COMPLETELY FALSE!

This was NOT a natural flood.  It was a flood that God himself created for a single purpose: destroy all land animals life from the face of the earth.  He did NOT say he intended to harm the plants, and the plants were NOT harmed as evident by olive leaf.

So....how are you going to show PHYSICAL evidence of a flood that covered covered all the mountain and wiped out all animal life, yet did harm a single plant?  You can't.  Because the fact that no plants were harmed means no soil erosion....no soil erosion, no physical evidence of the flood waters.

All the information needed to prove the fallicy of your assumption is right there in there in the biblical account.  All that is needed is the will to read it.

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

The Flood was the wrath of God upon the earth, and the fact that the Flood in Genesis chapters 6-9 did not harm the plants is much like what it will be again when God pours out his wrath upon the earth:

Revelation 9:4 "They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads."

---

I can't believe this debate regarding physical evidence of the flood has raged for centuries!!!  Didn't anyone care to read the biblical account?!  They've been arguing over the lack of mud flows that, according to the biblical account, never would have occurred in the first place!!!

 

[John Dibble]

Well, at least we agree on two things:
1) every experiment ever conducted has demonstrated that nature cannot create itself, which leaves science at a dead end.
2) God creating the universe solves problem #1

3) The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe solves problem #1.
4) Invisible Pink Unicorn creating the universe solves problem #1.
5) <Fill in the blank> creating the universe solves problem #1.
6) The universe has always existed, just in a different form prior to the Big Bang, solves problem #1.

You can come up with any number of answers to solve that problem, but it doesn't make them true. Science doesn't presume one simply because there is a lack of observable evidence to draw a conclusion.

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

Well, at least we agree on two things:
1) every experiment ever conducted has demonstrated that nature cannot create itself, which leaves science at a dead end.
2) God creating the universe solves problem #1

3) The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe solves problem #1.
4) Invisible Pink Unicorn creating the universe solves problem #1.
5) <Fill in the blank> creating the universe solves problem #1.

ok, a supernatural force  creating the universe solves problem #1...I wasn't trying to be specific.

---

6) The universe has always existed, just in a different form prior to the Big Bang, solves problem #1.

Science doesn't presume one simply because there is a lack of observable evidence to draw a conclusion.

the laws of thermo prohibit the universe always existing

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Well, at least we agree on two things:
1) every experiment ever conducted has demonstrated that nature cannot create itself, which leaves science at a dead end.
2) God creating the universe solves problem #1

3) The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe solves problem #1.
4) Invisible Pink Unicorn creating the universe solves problem #1.
5) <Fill in the blank> creating the universe solves problem #1.

ok, a supernatural force  creating the universe solves problem #1...I wasn't trying to be specific.

So why then posit God for anything? And ditto for the end of universe as well.

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

So why then posit God for anything? And ditto for the end of universe as well.

Dude, I was simply showing the necessity of a Creator from the laws of Thermo.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So why then posit God for anything? And ditto for the end of universe as well.

Dude, I was simply showing the necessity of a Creator from the laws of Thermo.

Yes but then you were positing that this was God's result and that it proves the existence of God.

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

So why then posit God for anything? And ditto for the end of universe as well.

Dude, I was simply showing the necessity of a Creator from the laws of Thermo.

Yes but then you were positing that this was God's result and that it proves the existence of God.

why is it when I use science to back up a biblical account, you then run to a corner claiming it could be any Creator?

My point was not to pin down the identity of the Creator by the use of scientific evidence...rather my point was to back up the bible's claim that a Creator created the universe - a viewpoint affirmed by the laws of Thermo.

I couldn't care less if, nor did I ever claim, the laws of Thermo can't pinpoint the identity of the Creator.

You asked:

#1: Bemuse me (on how the laws of thermodynamics requiring a creator).

…and I answered.

I proved the requirement of a Creator.  Just accept it instead of coming back with an addition cop-out requirement of having the laws of Themo identify the Creator.  I proved my point.  Put a period on it and move on.

If you can't take losing a debate point, then don’t engage in one.  And you really should consider picking another topic for debate, otherwise I suggest you and your high brow vocabulary prepare yourselves to get your butt whipped by me on a regular basis.

At the very least, if you’re going to continue debatiung the accuracy of the bible, at least read it first.  It would save us a lot of time.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah yes, but you implied this by:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed I did, just where does the time go, now why tell me is that more absurd than God. Personally If he did create the universe, the Christian God has got alot of explaining to do.

why does God need to give you an exhaustive explanation beyond what the bible has already explained?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to me evidence of your line of logical reasoning --> It at least implies that "laws of thermodynamics" = proof of God.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now we are back to conspiracy metaphysics... we should believe your account of Genesis outside of the record of the Bible, you are still very unclear on this.

You didn't respond to many points I made earlier on biblical history (my comparsion to The Illad) or your rejection of the Qu'ran, which is entirely based on a personal assumption or the fact that you pick and choose which science to listen to and so forth. Actually I can't help that I am arguing in a circle here. It is true I've never read the bible cover to cover, though have read many parts of it, the Genesis quote was my error, but you still haven't given us any reason to believe ANY OF YOUR ASSERTIONS AT ALL EXCEPT THAT YOU STAY THEY ARE IN THE BIBLE AND ARE THUS TRUE. IN SHORT, YOU GIVEN ME A REASON FOR ME TO READ THE BIBLE EXCEPT FOR CONSTANT "IT'S THE WORD OF GOD" HOMILIES. On this issue "faith" does not quite cut it, as I have none, at least not in Christian God, which is an alien concept to me.

[Aizen]

I don't even care about the huge flood so much as the animal part


There are about 5,400 species of mammals
There are about 10,000 species of birds
There are about 8,200 species of reptiles
There are about 6-10 million species of insects

Plus other arthropods, unique fish etc.

Multiply this by 2...

...and you expect Noah to have collecetd two of each of these critters, cared for them on his massive ship (and we're talking massive to hold all these animals) and then distribute them accodingly throughout the world? I'm surprised ~19% of this forum is actually that stupid.