Did Noah's Ark actually happen?

[12th Doctor]

Question for jmfcst:

Since you brought up the Table of Nations, where do the Native Americans come from?

don't know, the bible doesn't say.  some speculate from Ham-Canaan

1. Fossil evidence and genetic studies establish that humanity had its origins in Africa -- eastern Africa. The idea that people propagated Africa from the Levant is bass-ackwards; the Semitic peoples of the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant are from one of the latest waves of emigrants from pre-historic East Africa. Caucasoid populations of modern Europe, Iran, and the Indian subcontinent were apparently the second-to-last  prehistoric waves to leave eastern Africa. (An aside to any white racists: Caucasoid peoples are really East Africans gone pale, and lesser divergence from African peoples than some others -- such as Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and the Sinitic peoples of China and nearby countries are longer separated from Africa than are 'de-colored' Caucasoid peoples).     
 
2. The biggest flood in human experience came at the end of the Ice Age. That was before any written history, but its effects would sear memories of then-living people. Any survivors would have tales to tell, and those tales would be better than anything that anyone could have put directly into writing. One likely place for such a flood is the shallow Perso-Arabian Gulf, an area that became inundated as the giant ice sheets of the Pleistocene Epoch melted. Seas rose everywhere, and such a long low plain as that of the Persian Gulf would have disappeared under water very quickly. Climate change was abrupt.

The Persian Gulf was likely a comparative paradise with water flowing from the Tigris and Euphrates River into a warm desert. It may have had some early agriculture and supported (by standards of the time) a fairly-large population. At the end of the Ice Age that ended as melt water from a few mountain glaciers in eastern Turkey and western Iran melted just as the sea water of the Indian Ocean rose. A world that might have been compatible with prehistoric peoples would have vanished underwater very abruptly.

3. Someone like Noah, clever enough to put together a reed boat to ride out the flood and have a little food on board and the foresight to take some animals, would have thrived in the aftermath. Non-survivors who didn't imitate him could be shown as fools at first, and sinners later as the story got incorporated into the Torah. Early patriarchs could express an important message for Jews: those who obey God thrive, and those who don't face severe retribution.

4. The stories of animals (two of each species) is absurd. Bears, cats of all kinds, hyenas, wolves and dogs, crocodilians, and the Komodo dragon are very nasty killers that would have found some of the herbivores easy prey in an enclosed place.  Noah would have had to have traveled around the world to get such creatures as pandas, raccoons, kangaroos, Tasmanian devils, the Komodo dragon, vicunas, Kirtland's warblers, and Emperor penguins. He would also have needed a large, temperature-controlled fresh-water aquarium for all the fresh-water fish that would have been killed in any incursion of sea water. Does anything indicate that Noah kept a large, temperature-controlled aquarium on board?

5. There is no evidence of any worldwide flood that inundated the entire world at the same time. Had it come from rain, then the energy released from the precipitation of rain from water vapor would have created conditions of a pressure cooker. From some open canopy? The energy released from falling water would also have cooked every living thing alive.

Let's try the evidence that sea shells are to be found in high mountains. There's a better explanation: a universe and an Earth much older than 6000 or so years, one old enough to have had violent uplifts of sea floor due to plate tectonics and slow erosion and deposition of highlands.   

Oh, no, no, no.  You see, my faith is so shallow that, if it didn't happen exactly the way it says in the Bible, then there is no point to this whole thing.

All that "evidence" that you bring up about genetics, and archeology... that is just God/Satan's way of trying to trick the non-believers.  Obviously, the full facts (and not just truth, as it were) are in scripture, and what we see about the world is just hog wash.

Also, somehow, believing that something didn't happen exactly the way it is told in the Bible is somehow connected to belief in God's impotence.  If you think that it might have happened another way, you are suggesting God couldn't do it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

A global flood?  No.

As we all know, flood stories are prominent in many cultures.  As we also know, there were, in fact, catastrophic floods as late as 6000 BC caused by the end of the last Ice Age.

The story is based on something, I think is the important thing.

^^^^^^

Then I guess the following people were deceived:
Moses (Genesis)
writer of 1Chron
Job
Eliphaz
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Luke
Paul
writer of Hebrews
Peter
Jesus (spoke about Noah in Matthew 24; Luke 17)
God (spoke to Noah in Genesis, and spoke about Noah to Isaiah and Ezekiel)


It amazes me that people can believe God made the entire universe out of nothing, yet doubt his ability to flood a tiny speck of the universe named "Earth"

It amazes me that people can believe either of these things.

It amazes me that people don't believe in a higher power, no matter which God it is. I mean something had to make everything we see...

That just raises the question "then what made God?" - quite often the answer given is "nobody, he always existed". (not saying this is your belief, just a generality) Isn't that really just the same? If you can believe that one thing exists without a creative force behind it, then why is it so strange for another person to believe another thing exists without a creative force behind it?

I guess because I grew up believing in a higher power(God), I'm not going to say the way I think is right or wrong because I wasn't there, it amazes me that people who believe in the big bang think someone believing in a higher power is crazy. When it takes the same amount of faith to believe that the matter the made everything has always been there as it does to believe that a higher power has always been there.

I personally don't think that's crazy. What would tend to be crazy to me is to stay shut in a vision of the reality, and to not accept at least the doubt, when some numerous observations of the reality contest this vision.

All that "evidence" that you bring up about genetics, and archeology... that is just God/Satan's way of trying to trick the non-believers.

Well, I expected that argument. Sure science can not fight against this one. It tends to make me sad to see such arguments. But, well, in the absolute, as no one can say, each one his point of view.

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

The stories of animals (two of each species) is absurd. Bears, cats of all kinds, hyenas, wolves and dogs, crocodilians, and the Komodo dragon are very nasty killers that would have found some of the herbivores easy prey in an enclosed place.

the diets of animals and man only included plants from the time of Adam to the time Noah stepped off the ark, then God included meat as part of the diet:

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. 30 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.

Gen 9:2-3 "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."

--- 

Noah would have had to have traveled around the world to get such creatures as pandas, raccoons, kangaroos

God brought the animals to Noah.

Gen 7:9 "The animals came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah."

---

He would also have needed a large, temperature-controlled fresh-water aquarium for all the fresh-water fish that would have been killed in any incursion of sea water. Does anything indicate that Noah kept a large, temperature-controlled aquarium on board?

only land animals were wiped out...Noah didn't have to worry about fish

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 is no evidence of any worldwide flood that inundated the entire world at the same time.

neither is there evidence that Jesus rose from the grave

---

Had it come from rain, then the energy released from the precipitation of rain from water vapor would have created conditions of a pressure cooker. From some open canopy? The energy released from falling water would also have cooked every living thing alive.

it came from above and below:  "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" Gen 7:11

---

Let's try the evidence that sea shells are to be found in high mountains. There's a better explanation: a universe and an Earth much older than 6000 or so years, one old enough to have had violent uplifts of sea floor due to plate tectonics and slow erosion and deposition of highlands.   

you're way off topic, dude. the bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old.  the seven days were not 24 days, for the sun and moon were not created until the 4th day and the 7th day was eternal.  in fact, there is ample scriptural evidence in Gen ch1 which suggests Adam was repopulating the earth.

[12th Doctor]

I would just like to clarify my position by saying this:

100% unquestioned faith and refusal to expand or modify one's own ideas, regardless of whatever happens, such as that demonstrated by our 100% Biblical literalist friends, is not faith.  It is brainwashing.

Faith is made valuable by virtue of the fact that is is something you have actually studied, weighed and examined.  Not by extreme, unyielding, undying devotion to a book.

If anyone could prove to me tomorrow, 100%, unequivocally, that God does not exist, then I would cease to believe.  It is because I continue to believe, after having considered the facts that my faith has virtue.

[12th Doctor]

There is not virtue in the faith of people like Jmf, and those more extreme than he, because their faith is more like a reinforced habit, or a stand in for someother structure that gives life meaning.

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

I guess because I grew up believing in a higher power(God)

2Tim 3:15 "From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

[pbrower2a]

The stories of animals (two of each species) is absurd. Bears, cats of all kinds, hyenas, wolves and dogs, crocodilians, and the Komodo dragon are very nasty killers that would have found some of the herbivores easy prey in an enclosed place.

the diets of animals and man only included plants from the time of Adam to the time Noah stepped off the ark, then God included meat as part of the diet:

Compelling evidence of predation exists in the fossil record. All cats, snakes, seals, dolphins, hawks, eagles, crocodilians, vultures, penguins, spiders, mantises, and lake trout are obligate carnivores.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gee. Suspended animation would have been far easier -- and far safer, especially with such critters as rattlesnakes, grizzly bears, tigers, and pit bulls. (OK -- no pit bulls, but you get the general idea). Don't forget some of the giant herbivores -- elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and Cape buffalo that have cause to distrust us.

By the way -- whatever happened to sabertooth cats? Mammoths and mastodons?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like box jellies, Portuguese Man O'War, blue-ring octopuses, cone shells, rattlesnakes, anacondas, reticulated pythons, Gila monsters, leopard seals, tiger sharks, elephants, rhinos, hippos, grizzly bears, big cats, funnel web and black widow spiders, and pit bulls? (Humanity created a real monster with the latter one, so that one's not God's fault).

Like disease germs and tapeworms?
--- 

Noah would have had to have traveled around the world to get such creatures as pandas, raccoons, kangaroos

God brought the animals to Noah.

Gen 7:9 "The animals came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah."[/quote]

Sure. The armadillos, raccoons, and cougars swam across the Atlantic to get on the Ark. Penguins found their way through hundreds of miles of tropical seas to reach the Ark. Pandas, polar bears, and and pangolins crossed thousands of kilometers of unforgiving desert to get to the Ark. Tell me all about the kangaroos, koalas, wombats, and Sydney funnel-web spiders.

I question whether Noah's family was the only one family to have survived the Flood. A tale similar to Noah's appear in many cultures -- many pagan cultures.

---

He would also have needed a large, temperature-controlled fresh-water aquarium for all the fresh-water fish that would have been killed in any incursion of sea water. Does anything indicate that Noah kept a large, temperature-controlled aquarium on board?

only land animals were wiped out...Noah didn't have to worry about fish [/quote]

Or amphibians? (frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

neither is there evidence that Jesus rose from the grave[/quote]

But there is testimony to the obvious consequences of Jesus Christ dying and emerging alive, such as that people saw Him alive after He had died on the Cross.  The only possible denials that I can imagine to the Resurrection is  that all testimony to the Crucifixion and Resurrection and His subsequent Ministry is false, delusional, or fabricated.

To state any of those is to deny Christianity or adopt a heresy (such as Islam).


---

Had it come from rain, then the energy released from the precipitation of rain from water vapor would have created conditions of a pressure cooker. From some open canopy? The energy released from falling water would also have cooked every living thing alive.

it came from above and below:  "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" Gen 7:11[/quote]

Then where did all the water go? By the way -- how was Noah able to navigate (surely the clouds of the intense rainstorms concealed the night sky and the sun by day), and why didn't his little wooden ship not get wrecked because of hurricane-force winds and hot rain?

If half of the water came from "below" -- ground water from springs, then the seas would have been warm enough to kill all living things in the sea not adapted to temperatures above  45 C (113 F). That includes all fish and marine mammals. I have experienced a temperature of 113 F (on a day in Dallas in 1980; I had a joke that Tojo was signing autographs that day, and I was "saving" Stalin for 114 F and Hitler for 115 F; mercifully I never got that far!)... but that was a dry heat. Imagine what such a temperature would be like in high humidity!

(OK, you win! Noah's Ark was really a steel-hulled nuclear  submarine with built-in air-conditioning and a rebreathing device, with sonar that he used so that he could sail under the tumultuous seas without hitting any underwater hazards). 
---

Let's try the evidence that sea shells are to be found in high mountains. There's a better explanation: a universe and an Earth much older than 6000 or so years, one old enough to have had violent uplifts of sea floor due to plate tectonics and slow erosion and deposition of highlands.   

you're way off topic, dude. the bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old.  the seven days were not 24 days, for the sun and moon were not created until the 4th day and the 7th day was eternal.  in fact, there is ample scriptural evidence in Gen ch1 which suggests Adam was repopulating the earth.
[/quote]

Everything before the Abrahamic covenant in the Bible is myth.

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

[1000 word argument, followed by this conclusion...]: Everything before the Abrahamic covenant in the Bible is myth.

Acts 17:24-26 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth"

Seems that Mars Hill once heard an appeal directly contradicting the conclusion of your dissertation.  And if your conclusion is wrong, your points are likewise.

[pbrower2a]

[1000 word argument, followed by this conclusion...]: Everything before the Abrahamic covenant in the Bible is myth.

Acts 17:24-26 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth"

Seems that Mars Hill once heard an appeal directly contradicting the conclusion of your dissertation.  And if your conclusion is wrong, your points are likewise.

The Bible is not a book of science, and it has no reliability as a history of any peoples other than those of the people writing its books. If you want science then read Darwin, Einstein, Freud, and the like.

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

[1000 word argument, followed by this conclusion...]: Everything before the Abrahamic covenant in the Bible is myth.

Acts 17:24-26 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth"

Seems that Mars Hill once heard an appeal directly contradicting the conclusion of your dissertation.  And if your conclusion is wrong, your points are likewise.

The Bible is not a book of science, and it has no reliability as a history of any peoples other than those of the people writing its books. If you want science then read Darwin, Einstein, Freud, and the like.

Science aside, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" is a literal interpretation of the historical record of Genesis. In other words, Paul believes the historical record of Genesis is factual, Paul does NOT believe it is a "myth".   All the scientific evidence disputing the historical account of Genesis does NOT change the fact that the rest of the bible interprets Genesis as the literal historical record.

In my responses to you, I simply corrected your assumptions about what the bible says or doesn't say, I didn't attempt to dispute your scientific evidence.  I personally don't care that the scientific "facts" are contrary to the bible, I actually find it humorous and it is actually expected (just read the bible - many of the promises/acts of God in the bible were contrary to the observable facts known to the people).  Faith is the ability to ignore the visible "facts" and believe the word of God. 

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Faith is the ability to ignore the visible "facts" and believe the word of God. 

That's why sometimes it can make good things, but, sometimes, the hell it can be dangerous. Well, in my opinion.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

[1000 word argument, followed by this conclusion...]: Everything before the Abrahamic covenant in the Bible is myth.

Acts 17:24-26 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth"

Seems that Mars Hill once heard an appeal directly contradicting the conclusion of your dissertation.  And if your conclusion is wrong, your points are likewise.

The Bible is not a book of science, and it has no reliability as a history of any peoples other than those of the people writing its books. If you want science then read Darwin, Einstein, Freud, and the like.

Whut?

Also, LOL at this thread. Jmfsct's attempt to retreat into metaphysics based around completely arbitrary premises in order to defend his argument is amusing to behold. Though I don't hold that "faith" is bad.

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

Faith is the ability to ignore the visible "facts" and believe the word of God. 

That's why sometimes it can make good things, but, sometimes, the hell it can be dangerous. Well, in my opinion.

Rom 4: 18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead . 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."

Check out the passage above...I have highlight in red physical evidence that seemed to make God's word impossible...and I have highlighted in green Abraham's faith as it stared down the physical evidence and trusted the word of God.

Was there anything "dangerous" in Abraham ignoring the evidence and believing God instead? Obviously not.

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

Also, LOL at this thread. Jmfsct's attempt to retreat into metaphysics based around completely arbitrary premises in order to defend his argument is amusing to behold. Though I don't hold that "faith" is bad.

in english, please.  How on earth am I retreating into metaphysics?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Also, LOL at this thread. Jmfsct's attempt to retreat into metaphysics based around completely arbitrary premises in order to defend his argument is amusing to behold. Though I don't hold that "faith" is bad.

in english, please.  How on earth am I retreating into metaphysics?

I fail to recognize the non-Englishness of my original post.

As for your retreat to metaphysics:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your arbitrary defined premise is that the bible is true, my arbitrary defined premise is that it is not. However I have the world of sense perception, scientific data, geology, biology, genetics and so forth on my side and you have faith and have thus tried to explain all these things away via some vast metaphysical conspiracy by God, which under my premise I don't have to believe in at all. Nothing wrong with faith, as I said earlier, but if "God the Conspiracy theorists against Man" is the best one can come up with well.....

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

Your arbitrary defined premise is that the bible is true, my arbitrary defined premise is that it is not. However I have the world of sense perception, scientific data, geology, biology, genetics and so forth on my side and you have faith

[Setting aside the laws of thermodynamics which testify to the need of a Creator..].

Abraham had both facts and faith.  And his facts were CONTRARY to his faith.  Yet he didn't waver, but believed God's word and God's word turned out to be true.  Likewise, Noah had never seen rain, so Noah's facts were also CONTRARY to God's warning of a flood.  But Noah proved God to be true and "by his faith he condemned the word" (Heb 11:7).

---

and have thus tried to explain all these things away via some vast metaphysical conspiracy by God, which under my premise I don't have to believe in at all. Nothing wrong with faith, as I said earlier, but if "God the Conspiracy theorists against Man" is the best one can come up with well.....

HUH?!

I have NEVER even hinted at a conspiracy theory on God's part. After all, he gave us his word, the scripture. 

1Cor 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion"

So, if anything, you are conspiring against yourself by not believing God's word:

Job 37:5 "He does great things beyond our understanding."

and...

Michal 7:4 "Now is the time of their confusion"

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Faith is the ability to ignore the visible "facts" and believe the word of God. 

That's why sometimes it can make good things, but, sometimes, the hell it can be dangerous. Well, in my opinion.

Rom 4: 18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah's womb was also dead . 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."

Check out the passage above...I have highlight in red physical evidence that seemed to make God's word impossible...and I have highlighted in green Abraham's faith as it stared down the physical evidence and trusted the word of God.

Was there anything "dangerous" in Abraham ignoring the evidence and believing God instead? Obviously not.

But what you say about Abraham here is something in which you have faith and in which I haven't. And no one can definitively affirm in the end who is wrong and who is right, that's why the one can just say that he believes or that he doesn't.

And yes, given that it can partially shut ourselves to what our senses tell us about the reality, it can be dangerous. Given that it can at best ignore, at worst have the will to eradicate, the tools we have to improve our perception of the reality, which are sciences, it can be dangerous. Given that it can make you taking huge risks, thinking that anyway there's something behind (here I refer to those who don't fear apocalypse), it can be dangerous.

In short, given that it can change the perception of the reality you have thanks to your senses, it can be dangerous.

So yes, according to the case, it can give you a great force to make great things, or it can be very dangerous.

As it can sometimes make good things, we could think there is a good way for faith and a bad one. And given it can lead you to not take in count what tell your senses to you, if it can have this power, maybe it could be because we could talk about a "6th sens" here. But as it is a one we really don't control very good, it can be as good as dangerous. I think religion would have as role to manage this "6th sens" for human beings and the fact that some can still believe in facts that are denied by the other senses would show that we terribly need new paths to better manage that "6th sens". Well, that are some personal reflexions.

With the hope my English will be enough understandable.

[John Dibble]

Your arbitrary defined premise is that the bible is true, my arbitrary defined premise is that it is not. However I have the world of sense perception, scientific data, geology, biology, genetics and so forth on my side and you have faith

[Setting aside the laws of thermodynamics which testify to the need of a Creator..].

Abraham had both facts and faith.  And his facts were CONTRARY to his faith.  Yet he didn't waver, but believed God's word and God's word turned out to be true.  Likewise, Noah had never seen rain, so Noah's facts were also CONTRARY to God's warning of a flood.  But Noah proved God to be true and "by his faith he condemned the word" (Heb 11:7).

If his premise is that the Bible isn't true, how is providing Biblical examples which his premise says aren't true supposed to change his mind?

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

In short, given that it can change the perception of the reality you have thanks to your senses, it can be dangerous.

you mean like Abraham obeying God's word by attempting to kill Isaac, his only son?  But didn't God stop Abraham before any harm was done?

Or, let's take the book of Acts...the only danger anyone in the book of Acts faced was the persecution of nonbelievers.

Sorry, you're going to have to provide a firm example.  Because since my testimony includes claims of receiving a direct word from God, I've yet to experience any danger by obeying God's word.  In fact, it saved me from sure destruction.

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

Your arbitrary defined premise is that the bible is true, my arbitrary defined premise is that it is not. However I have the world of sense perception, scientific data, geology, biology, genetics and so forth on my side and you have faith

[Setting aside the laws of thermodynamics which testify to the need of a Creator..].

Abraham had both facts and faith.  And his facts were CONTRARY to his faith.  Yet he didn't waver, but believed God's word and God's word turned out to be true.  Likewise, Noah had never seen rain, so Noah's facts were also CONTRARY to God's warning of a flood.  But Noah proved God to be true and "by his faith he condemned the word" (Heb 11:7).

If his premise is that the Bible isn't true, how is providing Biblical examples which his premise says aren't true supposed to change his mind?

Because hearing the word of God in the face of insurmountable problems is exactly what God did to boost Abraham's faith.

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

or, in other words...

Rom 10:17 "Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ"

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

In short, given that it can change the perception of the reality you have thanks to your senses, it can be dangerous.

you mean like Abraham obeying God's word by attempting to kill Isaac, his only son?  But didn't God stop Abraham before any harm was done?

Or, let's take the book of Acts...the only danger anyone in the book of Acts faced was the persecution of nonbelievers.

Sorry, you're going to have to provide a firm example.  Because since my testimony includes claims of receiving a direct word from God, I've yet to experience any danger by obeying God's word.  In fact, it saved me from sure destruction.

You, once again and always, speak considering that Bible is all true, is all word from what you call "God". You can't convince me with that given I don't share that belief and given the fact that no human on the earth can, in the absolute, say whether what is in Bible is true or not. I've some tools that are sciences, which are just the observations of the reality by my 5 senses, which tell me that what is in Bible can't be true. As we can imagine everything, that this the devil who try to trick us by sciences or anything, I decide to follow my 6th sens which tell me to trust the first 5 ones. You decide to not listen all your 5 senses because you decide to not listen to all what say sciences. That's your right, we don't have the same beliefs, period.

So don't take biblical examples to try to convince me, as I don't trust biblical examples. Can you get this?

If you experienced in your life that some words of "God" saved you from sure destruction it shows that faith can carry good things, as there are good and deep things in Christianity. But, I personally think you should take some distance with the literal texts by, for example, listening more what tell you your 5 other senses by the way of sciences.

And if you haven't experienced yet that it could be bad to trust 100% biblical texts, the simple facts that it can put you away from what tell you your 5 other senses should warn you. Because, if you have a bad vision of what is the reality, you can't correctly deal with it, and you have more chances to be in danger, or to shut yourself to some constructive perspectives, because you can build nothing serious on a false vision of the reality.

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

And if you haven't experienced yet that it could be bad to trust 100% biblical texts, the simple facts that it can put you away from what tell you your 5 other senses should warn you. Because, if you have a bad vision of what is the reality, you can't correctly deal with it, and you have more chances to be in danger, or to shut yourself to some constructive perspectives, because you can build nothing serious on a false vision of the reality.

For someone who places his faith in science, you sure spout a lot of conjecture.  Doesn't the logic of science stipulate that you should put your theory to the test?

So, when, over the last 16 years, has the word of God placed me in danger?  I admit that for the 1st two weeks after I was saved, I lived off of 2 hours of sleep a night before having to go to work, after which I literally sprinted from my car up to my apartment door on the 2nd floor, which included climbing the stairs and only touching every third rung...because I hungered so much to read more of the bible.  One could say that such a long frenzied pace of pure adrenalin was "dangerous", and that I ignored giving my employer a full eighth hours, but God never told me to run at breakneck speed for two straight weeks, I did that on my own.  That was me simply the result of me reacting to being found by God.

In fact, to be perfectly honest, when I first arrived back at work the morning after being saved in 1992, God's Spirit convicted me of my wasted opportunities at work.  The Spirit removed all the noise from my mind and opened the doors of opportunity of success.  But I wanted to do nothing but focus on the events the night before and read more of the bible.

So, even though I was "out of control", it wasn't God's fault.  God was overjoyed that I was overjoyed about him, but God was still prodding me to take control and focus on my responsibilities because he wanted me to be a witness to others, not by talking about God 24 hours a day and ignoring my responsibilities, but to be a witness by being able to manage my responsibilities while at the same time holding onto to the joy that I had found and expressing it to others.  And I had to learn that it's not for the sake of joy that God gave me joy, rather he gave me joy so that I could focus on serving others and in doing so to serve Him.

So, all your concern for my well-being is misplaced.  Because nothing could serve me better than gaining the ability to serve God by obeying his word.

[RI]

Look, people, jmfcst lives in a completely different world with different rules than any of you. It is no use to try and persuade him. It is hopeless. Give it up.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Your arbitrary defined premise is that the bible is true, my arbitrary defined premise is that it is not. However I have the world of sense perception, scientific data, geology, biology, genetics and so forth on my side and you have faith

[Setting aside the laws of thermodynamics which testify to the need of a Creator..].

Abraham had both facts and faith.  And his facts were CONTRARY to his faith.  Yet he didn't waver, but believed God's word and God's word turned out to be true.  Likewise, Noah had never seen rain, so Noah's facts were also CONTRARY to God's warning of a flood.  But Noah proved God to be true and "by his faith he condemned the word" (Heb 11:7).

---

and have thus tried to explain all these things away via some vast metaphysical conspiracy by God, which under my premise I don't have to believe in at all. Nothing wrong with faith, as I said earlier, but if "God the Conspiracy theorists against Man" is the best one can come up with well.....

HUH?!

I have NEVER even hinted at a conspiracy theory on God's part. After all, he gave us his word, the scripture. 

1Cor 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion"

So, if anything, you are conspiring against yourself by not believing God's word:

Job 37:5 "He does great things beyond our understanding."

and...

Michal 7:4 "Now is the time of their confusion"

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

#2: As Dibble said, why should I care about Bible quotes, your argument is completely circular... to show the truth of the bible, you quote the bible and presume that it is true. There is no logic here.

#3: God deceived man to believe what is opposite to the case seems to me a conspiracy. Though however outside of bible quotes you have given me no reason to belief it. So why should I?

#4: Repeat: Why should I believe you, Jmfsct? Why should I?