Noah's Ark

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I can't do the math, but what is the mass of water needed to flood the entire earth from sea level to 30,000 feet?
Where is it now?

How about a RHP list of points to discuss on the ark for those willing.

1. How many animals on ark?
2. Where did the water go?
3.
4.
5.

It would be good if we were to discuss this to get a list going
and start a thread on just one topic per thread/questoin. What do
you think? Since each topic is going to have plenty of things to
discuss, like evolution/breeding with the various kinds after the
flood.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
How about a RHP list of points to discuss on the ark for those willing.

1. How many animals on ark?
2. Where did the water go?
3.
4.
5.

It would be good if we were to discuss this to get a list going
and start a thread on just one topic per thread/questoin. What do
you think? Since each topic is going to have plenty of things to
discuss, like evolution/breeding with the various kinds after the
flood.
Kelly

Sounds good, but I don't have a clue as to how many animals would have to be on the ark to explain the number of animals that there are now, or even if that's the same question as "how many animals were on the ark?"

As to the water, is there anyplace where it could be? You'd have to know how much first.

Originally posted by chinking58
Ok, here's an article about a massive coal deposit in Australia that appeared in Creation Magazine. Some Undies (my tongue-in-cheek name for Unbelievers, as opposed to their term, Fundies, for Fundamentalist believers like myself) will dismiss this magazine and website out of hand. That is simply a cop-out they use to avoid the issue. I don't get it. ...[text shortened]... other articles found at this site.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/coal.asp

That's not convincing, especially when real science sites pan that one.
Look it up.
Billions of years remains the dominant theory by miles, sorry, try again.
You have Fundies and Undies; what about Panties?
Persistent avoiders neglecting truth ies?

Originally posted by KellyJay
NIV
21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

To speed things up, what version has God saying no floods on the
earth using that chapter and verse?
Kelly

Genesis 9.11-16

9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

9:12
And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

9:13
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

9:14
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

9:15
And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

9:16
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

🙂

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Genesis 9.11-16

9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

9:12
And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generat ...[text shortened]... ing covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

🙂

Okay two things, one I'm sure you already know. You told me verse
21 these are not verse 21.

The next thing is simple as well, what part of these verses are you
having trouble with? I don't see anything that says it isn't supposed
to flood any more. Which verse are getting that out of, or is it
another verse?

"Perhaps you could just explain to us why the bible says that god promised not cause anymore floods, and yet there still is ?"



I don't understand what you believe is there, I don't see any verse
that says God promised there were not going to be any more floods.
Kelly

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Was impossible. It never happened.
Pros? Cons?

My idea:

I believe in the flood. Jesus qouted it, and evidence supports Jesus.

We also have a lot of water on this planet. It makes up 75% of the earth. Im sure you know the water cycle. It tells us that water is reused.

Back in these early stages of life, water would not have been in such an abundance as it is now. When God provided such a downpour of rain, it is logical that we have so much water on the earth.

WHERE ELSE DID IT COME FROM?

Bye 🙂

"Perhaps you could just explain to us why the bible says that god promised not cause anymore floods, and yet there still is ?"

I can answer this.

GOD did promise no more floods by his covenant with Noah. He has kept to this.

The reason why we have floods today, is because of MAN.
Global warming and greediness, are causing polution:
which is detroying the ozone layer:
which is causing more heat from the sun:
which is melting the ice caps:
which is flooding islands.

God is innocent.

Bye from Tim 🙂

Originally posted by Phledos
My idea:

I believe in the flood. Jesus qouted it, and evidence supports Jesus.

We also have a lot of water on this planet. It makes up 75% of the earth. Im sure you know the water cycle. It tells us that water is reused.

Back in these early stages of life, water would not have been in such an abundance as it is now. When God provided such a downpour ...[text shortened]... it is logical that we have so much water on the earth.

WHERE ELSE DID IT COME FROM?

Bye 🙂

That's one of the times Christ uses an allegory akin to a parable with the difference being that a parable needs to be true both ways.
As such , Jesus is using a hyperbole to make clear the concept of mass destruction and the saving of good people, there weren't too many similar biblical stories that he could have used , since that was the only one.

In short: He wasn't attesting to the truth of the flood story.

Did you know that some tablets use "storm" and "flood" as an allegory for the invasion of Sumer by the Elamites an event that could easily have brought semetic armies from Ebla and Jericho into Sumer . if that's the case and considering the adopting the Sumerian mythology by the Akkadians it seems likely that the future israelite were in Ur to aid the Indo-European Sumerians.
Something destroyed the people there thats a given , but not entirely since the culture was passed on to the Akkadians.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Perhaps you could just explain to us why the bible says that god promised not cause anymore floods, and yet there still is ?

God promised not to destroy the whole earth with a flood again. Any and every local flood that has occured since then is nothing in comparison to the flood of Noah's day.

Taking this promise of God into consideration, the fact that we still do have local floods is an indicator that Noah's flood was not a local flood, as some have claimed.

BTW; God has also said that the next time He judges the earth, it will be with fire!

Originally posted by nickybutt
I've now looked at the article, along with many others on the site, and frankly I'm not impressed. The articles are mainly focussing on tiny inaccureries in different scientific theories, and completely overlook the immense scientific problems in their own.
A good example is the article: 'How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?'
http://www.answer ...[text shortened]... ligious site which has nothing to do with real science.

EDIT:misspell, misspell, and misspell

Thanks for taking a good look! I appreciate that much openmindedness around here!

I do beg to differ with your conclusion about the species, however.

It doesn't take evolution to produce the many 'species' we see today. Nor does it take so much time. It simply takes variation within kinds, and if you look at my family of 8 kids even, you can see how varied the produce can be even in one generation! Just because, for instance, we have different names for every variant sparrow, does not mean they didn't come from the same ancestors. I'd bet there is probably an article somewhere in aig that addresses this issue better than I can.

I would also suggest that if a site claiming to be scientific delves into speculation in some areas, extrapolating the scientific facts to explain, or deal with other more philosophical issues, then it might be the perfect site to use in this here spirituality forum. And I'm sure you can see that any site propounding natural origins also carries with it complete philosophical implications that are also 'religious' in nature.

In any case, thanks again NB, for taking a real look.

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
Genesis 9.11-16

9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

9:12
And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generat ...[text shortened]... ing covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

🙂

9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.


It's here in verse 11. But it is very clear that God is promising not to judge the whole earth with another global aquatic catastrophe.

Originally posted by Phledos


Back in these early stages of life, water would not have been in such an abundance as it is now.

This is wrong, we have the same amount water now as then.

During the ice ages, it is true that there was less seawater because of the large icecaps, but the last ice age was well before the supposed flood. It was well before the supposed "creation" too, but that's another story.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
That's not convincing, especially when real science sites pan that one.
Look it up.
Billions of years remains the dominant theory by miles, sorry, try again.
You have Fundies and Undies; what about Panties?
Persistent avoiders neglecting truth ies?

Dominant theory? Lots of dominant theories have come and gone over the years. This one will too, one day.

But what is not convincing about the giant coal deposits?

I like your 'panties'. I mean, I like your 'panties acronym!
Panties and Undies go together right?

Originally posted by chinking58
Dominant theory? Lots of dominant theories have come and gone over the years. This one will too, one day.

But what is not convincing about the giant coal deposits?

I like your 'panties'. I mean, I like your 'panties acronym!
Panties and Undies go together right?

Coal started forming 390 million years ago, any geologist would know that. Your site is off the beaten path enough to be totally lost.

"PANTies" could be applied to the either side, but since I coined it, I apply it to creationists. Evolutionists aren't PANTies, by definition, since they seek Truth. If it turns out that Goddunnit, then that's the way it is. There is no evidence that this is the case yet. There is much evidence that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution happened.
I'm ready to let this thread die, there's nothing here.

Originally posted by chinking58
9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall [b]all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

[/b]

neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood

Try telling that to bangladeshie stuck up a tree, whilst his family, home & livelyhood get washed away

neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth

What about the recent tsunami, plenty of destruction there.

However i agree, technically the text does imply a complete global flood.

Kellyjay, chinking58 & phledos I stand corrected.🙁

..........and I would have got away with it, if it hadn't be for those meddling christians