Noah and the Ark

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Yeah, there's that. Still. Was the figurative mass destruction of zillions of people and animals really necessary?

Considering that over time, the "zillions" would all end up dead anyway and we'd be left wondering what purpose they served even under those conditions...

Remember Shakespeare's Henry V? The play starts with the machinations of the clergy about how to weasel Henry's claim to the French throne into a more favorable light. Then there is a look at how war has affected some troops loyal to "Hal" in the past and the awful consequences of the martial life.

Then we have a complex interplay of international relations followed by the basest treason and the attempted murder of the Royal Person Himself! And all of that is just to set up the terrible march in the rain to Le Harve in France ("No king of England, if not king of France!" cries Henry at one point), the brutal siege and horrible loss of life ("Once more into the breech!"). Then another grueling march to Agincourt and the terrible slaughter there.

Next, we find Henry giving his terms to his uncle, the King of France as he woos his cousin the princess. He gets everything he wanted by marriage! There was no need for the war at all (a part of the 100 Years' War)!

Then the chorus updates us on the events following Henry V's career and the birth of his son who was crowned King of England and France!

... France recovers, retakes Paris and the entire country - in a single fell swoop all of the drama, the intrigue and the terrible costs of war are all wiped clean from the slate and the audience is left to ask, "What was the point of all this fighting to begin with?"

"Thus far, with rough and all-unable pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In little room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
This star of England: Fortune made his sword;
By which the world's best garden be achieved,
And of it left his son imperial lord.
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this king succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take." ...

A "sound and fury, signifying nothing?" ...

[pelathais]

Cut the scene from the Globe Theater in Elizabethan England and go quickly now through time and space to the walls protecting the Temple in Jerusalem where a Temple musician and minstrel is fulfilling his course of standing watch over the Holy Places at night.

From his perch high on the wall, our bard sees the prostitutes and their clientèle openly engaging in their "business" affairs in the darkness of the street below. He watches helplessly as brutal thieves fall upon innocent victims. From his post high on the Temple walls he is able to see the naked and vicious sins of his proud kingdom and he cries out to God for help in understanding all of this crime and the flouting of the Law.

God answers the young musician, for he is a prophet as well. God gives him a vision of the coming of the Babylonians to judge the backslidden nation and shows him how that the crimes he has witnessed below his post on the wall would be avenged with the fire and destruction of the Chaldean hordes.

The next night he is upon the high wall again, pondering the vision that he had seen. He is obviously troubled by this. Finally the turmoil in his heart is more than he can keep back and he cries out to God again...

"The Chaldeans!?! You've got to be kidding me! They're a far worse lot of heathen brigands and whoring thieves then the small time and petty rascals I had complained about before!!! What justice is there in this???"

The answer that the Spirit of God gives to the prophet/singer/musician/watchman is this: "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).

Not much of an explanation is it? "Just trust me..." That's God's deep and pround message when nothing makes any sense? What's the purpose? What's the meaning?

The bard answers with a song. The closing lines are:

Although the fig tree shall not blossom,
neither shall fruit be in the vines;
the labour of the olive shall fail,
and the fields shall yield no meat;
the flock shall be cut off from the fold,
and there shall be no herd in the stalls:

Yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will joy in the God of my salvation.

The LORD God is my strength,
and he will make my feet like hinds' feet,
and he will make me to walk upon mine high places.

To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.

Habakkuk 3:17-19

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

I see that this Thread has shifted a little bit, and for good reason. Noah and the Ark was a miracle, right? OK, assume it was. Everything about what happened, shouldn't have, but did, because of a Supernatural event. Science and facts just went out the window. No rhyme or reason, it just did. (Please notice the whole point of this story; FEAR. If the Church ain’t lining up, get the message out about Noah! That’ll teach em!)

I will be honest about the "Miracle" thing. I see Creation as that, a Creation. God made what we see, feel, and touch, and the obvious signature is there, at least for me. Just like a Painting, the stroke of the brush warrants the responsibility of someone. I really don't see any guess work with Creation. In fact, I don't see it as a miracle, and, I see God making things that can be measured, weighed, and tested. The Earth is not a mistake; it was designed with a purpose and a reason.

I've been serving the Lord in the Apostolic Church for over 30 years. I've been in more prayer lines than I can count. I've prayed for people, fasted for needs, and have pastored for 14 years. I've seen many claim a miracle, but have seen later that they either lied, were pressured to say they were healed, or that chance was simply in the equation. I've never seen blind eyes open or the cripple walk again.

I don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but the whole miracle crusade thing, and celebrities like Benny Hen, have soured my stomach over trusting in things that never happen. It becomes a mental game, the mind playing tricks. Maybe I'm in sin? Maybe we are not praying hard enough? Let's try harder? Let's tarry? Keep believing!! Come on, Trust in the Lord! Don't stop! Don't give up! This has probably driven more people away from church than what it has drawn. False hopes get old. Empty dreams leave one weak.

We had a Missionary from the UPC stop by our church in the 80's. He told us numerous stories of things that God had done in Africa. He told us a young boy's legs grew back during the night, sending the whole village into Revival. I believed every word, and my Faith went through the roof. God could do anything!! Well, when I became a Pastor, I found out this guy was a fraud. He blatantly lied to Churches all over the Nation so he could get financial support.

We went to a Healing Crusade a few years back. What a circus. People were being called out of the crowd, "You've got a back problem!!” (Yeah, well who doesn't when you get old?) After an Earth Shattering Prayer and a bunch of screaming, the preacher stuffed a microphone in their face, "So, How do you FEEL???" All eyes upon them, what do you expect them to say, "Just terrible!"

Church has become a place of emotional letdown. We keep expecting to see something great or supernatural, but Life is just Life. We work, love, eat, rest, get old, and die. And as age comes upon us Baby Boomers, we aren't the dumb little, pot smoking, kids of the 60's anymore. We've seen life and tested her waters. We see what Religion has done to Planet Earth, and that we may have been manipulated when we were young and zealous.

I really have yet to meet someone who can tell me that beyond any shadow of doubt, God Healed them, and I find this strange after all these years. So, this if for all you out there who wonder why I feel the way I do, and why the Facts are more important to me than ever before.

Just being honest.................

I can relate to some degree. However, I know of only one true to life "miracle" that I've seen. I've never received a miracle personally. When it comes to God more times than not I experience strange coincidences (what I call providence).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

...
Those who are teaching we must challenge the Bible in order to help Christianity so to speak are imo not of the Spirit of YHWH. It is their way of thinking that stumbles unbelievers in the first place. They are already taught in the schools that the Bible is nothing but myths. Then they come on an Apostolic forum and find the very same message being taught here by some. That is probably more destructive to their faith than all they learned in science class.

Satan has raised up many in this last day to spread his message that the holy scriptures are really just nothing. They are his best soul winners! Faith in God and Christ is revealed as one believes the sacred stories.

4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Romans 15:4

I'm not saying, "Challenge the Bible..." I'm saying, "Challenge yourself!"

The earth is clearly far, far, far more than 6,000 years old and all of the continents were not covered by a flood 4,000 years ago. Challenge yourself to come to terms with that.

And when you do, I am more than confident that the Bible will still be standing true.

[Aquila]

When it comes to Noah and the ark I firmly believe in a literal global flood. I believe that nearly 7000 species of land animals could fit on the ark (Halley’s Bible Commentary). I believe that the animals that were loaded onto the ark were led to the ark by the hand of God. This would require geography somewhat different than what we see today. There would be a necessity for “land bridges” linking the major land masses on earth. I believe that the “windows of heaven” and that the “fountains of the deep” were opened. I believe that this was the most catastrophic event our world as seen in its existence. When the entire world was covered with water for nearly 370 days excessive amounts of this flood water was frozen in the Polar Regions. When the flood subsided 150 days later most of this frozen water remained frozen in the Polar Regions. With excessive amounts of water frozen in the Polar Regions after the flood subsided sea level was significantly lower than it is today. I believe that many “land bridges” were present linking most of the major land masses on earth. As animals multiplied and migrated with the stabilizing climate they were able to migrate to more distant parts of the earth via these “land bridges”. Some human beings migrated on exploratory expeditions also. However, the majority of mankind remained in one place, eventually settling in Shinar. For the next 101 years after the flood the climate on earth was still stabilizing from the flood. The flood waters frozen in the Polar Regions (as glaciers) were melting causing sea levels to slowly rise globally. As sea levels rose slowly each “land bridge” vanished, one by one. After 101 years the last “land bridge” linking major land masses (continents) was covered by rising sea water. Perhaps this was the Bearing Straight. I believe that this event was very significant for early humanity because now mankind was cut off from being able to reach the most distant places on earth. I believe we read about this in Genesis,

Genesis 10:25a
“And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;”

It’s very possible that the earth is still stabilizing from the flood and this is why as ice caps fluctuate science is discovering a general retreating of the ice caps leading them to the conclusions that propose global warming. All of this would mean that our world is covered with more water today than prior to the flood. The implication is that the flood waters are still upon the earth defining coastlines as we know them today.

As far as the seas go, I believe that prior to the flood salinity in the oceans wasn’t as extreme as it is today. I believe that the flood most likely claimed most of the animals living in the seas. However, enough of the species that we see today survived. I believe that after the flood salinity levels in the oceans was greater and that sea life adapted or migrated as necessary to the various depths and regions were they could live comfortably. Life always finds a way.

I believe that the effects of this most devastating event and the geological remains left in its wake are very difficult to understand (and are definitely misunderstood by evolutionary science), especially since we’ve never witnessed such a globally devastating event. When evolutionists review the data they come at said data from the presupposition that there isn’t a God and that the earth has been “evolving” naturally over billions of years. Through this presupposition they interpret the data. Creationists come at the data from the presupposition that there is a God and that the Bible is God’s Word regarding how he created the earth and the events that transpired afterwards (including the flood).

At the end of the day the question is simply this… Whose report will you believe?

I believe that while we might not understand it today, someday during Christ’s reign we’ll learn how the Bible was right after all and how misguided evolutionary science truly is today. If we compromise for evolutionary science we'll be left looking pretty stupid when we stand before Jesus.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

...

I believe that while we might not understand it today, someday during Christ’s reign we’ll learn how the Bible was right after all and how misguided evolutionary science truly is today. If we compromise for evolutionary science we'll be left looking pretty stupid when we stand before Jesus.

The idea of evolution was first proposed by men such as Carl Linnaeus, Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and others. They were Christian believers whose presuppositions fit neatly with the the fundamentalist mindset of the day. It was the evidence that they were uncovering that caused them to question their presuppositions.

Linnaeus resisted the idea of what we call macro-evolution today, but was essentially the one who first proposed micro-evolution; that is, he simply stated the obvious thing that everyone had been observing all along.

But your whole "presuppositions of the evolutionists" thesis doesn't add up. There was a time when no one was an "evolutionist" and virtually everyone in the West had fundamentalist presuppositions. Those fundamentalist presuppositions simply could not stand up to the questions that were being asked as the canals of Europe and England were being dug and vast amounts of fossil evidences was piling up demanding an explanation that no one had at the time.

If you don't get an education your compromise with ignorance will continue to make you look pretty foolish in the presence of God today - AND I will hold you to that statement about "looking stupid when we stand before Jesus..." You've got one huge "I TOLD YOU SO!" coming from the both of us.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The idea of evolution was first proposed by men such as Carl Linnaeus, Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and others. They were Christian believers whose presuppositions fit neatly with the the fundamentalist mindset of the day. It was the evidence that they were uncovering that caused them to question their presuppositions.

Linnaeus resisted the idea of what we call macro-evolution today, but was essentially the one who first proposed micro-evolution; that is, he simply stated the obvious thing that everyone had been observing all along.

But your whole "presuppositions of the evolutionists" thesis doesn't add up. There was a time when no one was an "evolutionist" and virtually everyone in the West had fundamentalist presuppositions. Those fundamentalist presuppositions simply could not stand up to the questions that were being asked as the canals of Europe and England were being dug and vast amounts of fossil evidences was piling up demanding an explanation that no one had at the time.

If you don't get an education your compromise with ignorance will continue to make you look pretty foolish in the presence of God today - AND I will hold you to that statement about "looking stupid when we stand before Jesus..." You've got one huge "I TOLD YOU SO!" coming from the both of us.

I believe that while Carl Linnaeus and Erasmus Darwin are well intentioned, they are seriously mistaken.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When it comes to Noah and the ark I firmly believe in a literal global flood. I believe that nearly 7000 species of land animals could fit on the ark (Halley’s Bible Commentary). I believe that the animals that were loaded onto the ark were led to the ark by the hand of God. This would require geography somewhat different than what we see today. There would be a necessity for “land bridges” linking the major land masses on earth. ...

Genesis 7:8 tells us that the arthropods (insects) were on the Ark as well. It's not mentioned in the story, but a literal global flood such as you want to see would also necessitate that all freshwater fish, shrimp and thousands of other species of freshwater critters be stored aboard the ark as well to prevent the mixing of salty sea water with all of the rest of the waters killing them.

Also, you haven't addressed the "Three Hundred Foot Limit" for wooden ships. See this link. The vessel described in Genesis 6 was over 450 feet in length.

Your figure for "7,000 species" contrasts with a scientific estimate of 1,877,920 species. http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-v... Those Animals

Your land bridge work however is actually really good. However, given the fact that we can now genetically trace the parentage and map out a phylogenic history of any creature possessing DNA, the idea of these species evolving in geologic isolation together with the plants and fungi that they exist in symbiosis with is much more plausible than saying they all migrated apart just 4,000 years ago.

That being said, all of those critters still had to get around somehow at some point in time, and your explanation of sea level changes is a well documented fact - but over much longer periods of time.

For example, there are coral "reefs" scattered all over inland Florida. Since coral can only grow under shallow water we must conclude that the sea levels must have been much higher than they are today. This would have required that there be NO ICE CAPS AT ALL at some points in time over the past 100,000 years.

AND... there are also "fossil" coral reefs found at great depths off the coast of Florida. These submerged "reefs" (really submerged!) are at a depth too deep for the coral to live. The coral making animals need sunlight and will die if submerged too deeply. The existences of these reefs tell us that the sea levels were once very, very much lower than they are today. About the only explanation for that would be massive ice sheets covering the poles - much more massive than anything we've seen today.

You're a careful thinker, Chris. You work out details and you examine issues well. I think that if you allowed yourself to be more exposed to the issues and data points related to the earth's natural history that you would come to similar conclusions as I have come to. And I got here with Young Earth Creationist presuppositions!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

... I believe that the “windows of heaven” and that the “fountains of the deep” were opened. ...

This is really an unsurmountable problem for a literal interpretation here. The word "firmament" in Hebrew refers to a solid fixture. A tangible and solid barrier. In this case our solid barrier has "windows" in it which, when opened, will allow the "waters above" (Genesis 1:7) to pour through.




The problem here is that even after decades of rocketry we have yet to ever hit anything solid in the sky, nor have our radars and other detection systems found anything to be there either.

Also, once our astronauts get past the point where the firmament should have been (and wasn't!) they have never reported finding the "Tiamat" or the watery abyss. It is within this watery abyss (or "chaos") that the earth and sky were formed with the firmament to hold the abyss at bay (Genesis 1:1-2).

The Flood of Noah is a story of the partial undoing of the work of creation. That was one of the most frightful elements of the tale. The Creator had seemingly changed His mind about life - our lives! - and was determined to undo the effects of His own creation.

But the story ends happily with a peaceful token that the Creator will not end existence, but that this peace would also be tempered with the promise of judgment as well.

To see that the firmament was a solid fixture we need to only look up other passages where the word is used:

"Over the heads of the living beings was something like a platform [a "firmament"], glittering awesomely like ice, stretched out over their heads." Ezekiel 1:22 NET Bible. See also Ezekiel 10:1 - "I saw on the platform (in the Temple) ..."

If this was intended to be literal, where is the firmament today?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that while Carl Linnaeus and Erasmus Darwin are well intentioned, they are seriously mistaken.

On what points?