what if it is Noah's Ark

Quote from Turok:

Then you don't believe in the gospel being spread through the holy spirit of any other myriad of ways available to god. (though this shouldn't surprise me since many previous posts of yours prove your belief in a god with very limited powers)

JB

I believe that's possible but only known by God and certainly not normative. I don't believe that's what Paul was referring to in the above passage.

Yes, I believe in a God who is deliberately self-limiting and works both by natural and supernatural means.
 
Quote from stu:

scientific justification for, or a problem with the Genesis text itself requires a trump card ??

Are you serious?

Yes, show me a scientific problem with the Flood account in Genesis so I can understand your certitude...
 
Science can validate only that which is within the realm of science.

What you are ignorant of, speak not.

Quote from stu:

Faith in a literal Bible confirms a literal Bible
Faith in a non literal Bible confirms a non literal Bible

Faith in a literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears confirms a literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears
Faith in a non literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears confirms a non literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears

Faith in God confirms God
Faith in No God Confirms No God

Simple. Choosing Faith proves any choice you choose whether valid or not.
 
Quote from stu:

Faith in a literal Bible confirms a literal Bible
Faith in a non literal Bible confirms a non literal Bible

Faith in a literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears confirms a literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears
Faith in a non literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears confirms a non literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears

Faith in God confirms God
Faith in No God Confirms No God

Simple. Choosing Faith proves any choice you choose whether valid or not.

Hey stu,

How come you now replaced your buddy Gilbert with Goldilocks and the Three Bears?

Don' t tarnish your standing as a biblical fiddler!

nononsense
 
Quote from ArchAngel:

The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is actually a retelling (modified somewhat for its target audience) an even older flood myth (Gilgemesh is itself supposed to have been a retelling of an even older tale).

A flood myth of some kind or other is global - peoples around the world have some kind of ancient mythology of a flood.

Whether that's an ancient memory of some large scale flood event (some will immediately think of Atlantis) or a retelling of a single ancient myth that traveled around the globe over thousands of years with explorers, who knows.

Yes, but it should be noted that over 85% of the Flood Stories involve a large vessel. It would be very odd, again imo, for every pre-historic world traveler to convey the same general story.

That is, unless they all happened to be in the same general location and come from the same source event.

But I realize I can't prove what I just said...
 
Quote from stu:

scientific justification for, or a problem with the Genesis text itself requires a trump card ??

Are you serious?

The only serious objection that I know of to a local flood account regards the size of the ark itself. The largest clipper ships of the last century were about 300 feet and their oak members lacked the tensile strength for long ocean and sea going journeys.

My rebuttal to that is that there are woods in the region that have the tensile strength of metal. So if the "gopher wood" of Genesis corresponds to those kinds of wood and they were sufficiently abundant, then this issue is easily overcome.

Of course, I cannot prove this, but at least there is a reasonable explanation.

Also, keep in mind that the ark, unlike the clipper ships, was not intended for "high seas" type of sailing. It was meant to float in a flooded plain...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

What is most amusing to me, is your attempt to apply material logical to Biblical stories.

If God does exist and is all powerful, God could suspend the laws of material nature to accomplish His goals. From the perspective of God who has unlimited power, anything is possible, and from the perspective of a material mind, only that which is known to the limited material mind is possible.

Your entire belief system is based on what you can perceive with the senses and extrapolate upon via the use of relativistic logic.

You judge what you don't know to be true or false only on the basis of limited instrumentation.

In other words, if there is something that does in fact exist outside the range of your intellect and senses, you would say it does not exist until it can be known via your limited intellect and senses.

Your entire belief system is based on ignorance not knowledge, as you claim knowing only that which is knowable via your limited instrumentation, and at the same time you have to admit you don't know everything, nor can you even hold the totality of all that is known scientifically in your mind at the same point and time. Your mind cannot calculate at the speed of computers, your senses are very limited and need mechanical instrumentation to see beyond a relatively short distance, etc.

So, what you posses is a limited knowledge, which is the product of a limited mind, and implemented by limited thinkers.

It is sufficient to say that you believe in material science.

Anything more is clearly redundant.

This is inccorect...he believes in his faith " to become the greatest trader of all time"...as he has said countless times here on ET...surely he has no idea what it is to be a successful trader ( years and years of consistent profits ..hey not that im any better) yet he claims he will be the gretest of all time ...either he is talking out his you know what ( maybe drunk that night also ) or he really has faith in something he cant or may never prove...

the guy is a believer...welcome aboard gordo
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Science can validate only that which is within the realm of science.

What you are ignorant of, speak not.

I made no mention about science validating anything.

Simply, faith itself confirms anything you, or anyone else, wants it to. It has no legitimacy by or of itself.

If you were ignorant of that fact, then you should have spoken not of faith.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

The only serious objection that I know of to a local flood account regards the size of the ark itself. The largest clipper ships of the last century were about 300 feet and their oak members lacked the tensile strength for long ocean and sea going journeys.

My rebuttal to that is that there are woods in the region that have the tensile strength of metal. So if the "gopher wood" of Genesis corresponds to those kinds of wood and they were sufficiently abundant, then this issue is easily overcome.

Of course, I cannot prove this, but at least there is a reasonable explanation.

Also, keep in mind that the ark, unlike the clipper ships, was not intended for "high seas" type of sailing. It was meant to float in a flooded plain...
Well how about what many might consider the serious objection that it doesn't agree with the Word of God.

Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 19: states...And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

It seems you want the Word of God that states "under the whole heaven" to become an amusing (to you) 'Flood Geology cultural bias'.

And this is not a problem to do with Genesis text???
 
Quote from stu:

Well how about what many might consider the serious objection that it doesn't agree with the Word of God.

Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 19: states...And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

It seems you want the Word of God that states "under the whole heaven" to become an amusing (to you) 'Flood Geology cultural bias'.

And this is not a problem to do with Genesis text???

I still say you're showing your cultural bias. Let me give an example. In Genesis 41:56, the King James Version states "the famine was over all the face of the earth."

Now I don't believe anyone would interpret that globally. In other words, noone would say that the author was referring to Antartica or Greenland, etc.

I believe that you are trying to force an interpretation that you would not apply anywhere else.
 
Back
Top