What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Noah and the Flood

I agree with some of what you have said, A Christian should
not have to have "proof" of his/her faith.

The bible is Gods instruction book, I dont belive it was written
with "proof" in mind, more like directions\instructions.

Who has proof of the earth's age? Havent heard that one before.
 
supernac said:
I agree with some of what you have said, A Christian should
not have to have "proof" of his/her faith.

The bible is Gods instruction book, I dont belive it was written
with "proof" in mind, more like directions\instructions.

Who has proof of the earth's age? Havent heard that one before.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the response.

In terms of proof the earth's age, science believes the earth to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, based on a variety of scientific analyses. While it isn't absolute "proof", the vast majority of observations, data and scientists agree that the planet is about that old.

YEC often point out certain scientific (or pseudo-scientific) observations in an attempt to prove the earth is very young.

So they are doing the same thing science is doing, trying to prove or determine the age of the earth through empirical observations (such as the observed changes in the size of the sun or claims that Noah's ark has been discovered.)
 
For thousands of years, man was sure the earth was flat. Come to find
out it was round!!!

For thousands of years man did not know the "law" of gravity as Einstein
stated it. The law was still there!!!

My point:

Just because man does not understand/believe does not mean it's not
true.
 
supernac said:
I'm new here, whats your back ground if you dont mind me asking??
Click to expand...
I don't mind at all.

I am an atheist. I use to be Christian when I was a kid. But I fell away because I could not find a reason why God should be any more real than Santa.

When I got older, I took a new look at claims of religion. Here is where I see some problems (and you can see why I wrote what I did):

1. If it is all about faith (and not about evidence) then you can not say one religion is any more true than another. Islam is just as believable as Thor worship.

2. If it is about evidence, then science would support it. If there was a flood, we would see scaring evidence. Instead we can tell alot about the past going back billions of years.

3. If it were a combination of proof and faith, then there needs to be better proof. For example, outside the Bible, there is no evidence Jesus ever lived (much less any claims of the Bible). Of the four main books of the New Testament, 3 are written by people who were associates of a person that dreamed of Jesus. The Book of John (written 60 years later) may be the only book of someone that could have seen Jesus.

So that is where I see little proof.

Just because man does not understand/believe does not mean it's not true.
Click to expand...
That is a very good point. But it swings both ways. Believing in God does not mean that is the truth either.

So what is a good way to discover truth? Believe a holy book that your culture accepts (Bible or Quran)? Follow science? Assume we must be special somehow and life has a great meaning and go from there? Assume we are in the Matrix and reality is all fake?

Quath
 
Could Noah's Ark hold all those animals?

Answer here...

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Exerpt from above link...

How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

"Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study...

...But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep.

Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space."
 
bibleberean said:
"Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study...
Click to expand...
Herein lies one big problem. There are 400,000 species of beetles. The whole ark could be covered in just beetles many times over. But say that you try to justify this by saying that only a few beetle species were on the ark and they later became the 400,000 species we know today.

How did they go from a few species to 400,000? If you use evolution, then you support macroevolution on a scale much faster than any proponent of evolution has ever proposed. If you say that God magically did it, then why even transport any aninmals on the ark? God could have started with two rats and used magic to make them turn into all the different animals.

Quath
 
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep
Click to expand...

"the" dinosaur? you mean, the thousands of diffrent dinosaurs right??




noahsarkmeas.jpg



Genesis 6
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Back then, people used a measurement called cubits! In America, a cubit is 1.5 feet! That means that Noah's Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall! Noah's ark was also only 3 stories tall, tall like a building!!!

sp ;ets see. according to the bible, it was 101,205 sq feet.. of room. inside, if it waas a perfect box..

Now, what gets me, is the SMALLEST train car, available from CSX one of the largest (or largest) train companies in the USA is 5238 ft3
http://www.csx.com/?fuseaction=customer ... Dimensions

Now, . simple division, shows u can get abotu 20 cars total.

not 3 trains of 69 cars each...
now.. How do u get 207 train cars, to take up 37% of the arks room, when u can only fit 20 on total? only 10% of the animals can go on, so that means, 5k animals.. right?

Math, is your friend :)
 
Possible explanations for insects, plants, etc. surviving...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... size13.asp


"In the original Hebrew, the word variously translated as ‘beast’ or ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.3 Noah did not need to take sea creatures4 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water carrying sediment would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood. However, if God in His wisdom decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business.

Noah did not need to take plants eitherâ€â€many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of tangled vegetation, as seen today after severe storms.

Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. According to Genesis 7:22, the Flood wiped out all land animals that breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark. Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes (tracheae) exiting through pores (spiracles) in their exterior skeleton (‘shell’).
 
Excerpt from the article

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 6-2000.asp

Were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

"... although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds†of dinosaurs.

Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers†and much smaller than the adults. Note that even the biggest dinosaurs came from eggs no larger than footballs.

Also, many modern reptiles keep growing till they die, unlike mammals, and since dinosaurs were reptiles, even many evolutionists believe that the very big specimens were very old ones.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, which is about 460x75x44 feet, with a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.

Without getting into all the math (see the article How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?, or for more detail the book: Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study), the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space)."
 
B asically, you have to invoke a whole lot of magic to make it work out. It would ave seem simplier if God had just made the rest of the world infertile. That would have just been one bit of magic. Or if God had snapped His fingers and everyone but Noah's family disappear.

This story is like a movie with a lot of special effects that lacks in plot.

Quath
 
bibleberean said:
Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers†and much smaller than the adults. Note that even the biggest dinosaurs came from eggs no larger than footballs.

Also, many modern reptiles keep growing till they die, unlike mammals, and since dinosaurs were reptiles, even many evolutionists believe that the very big specimens were very old ones.
Click to expand...
Actually, this isn't true. In July's Scientific American there was an article about how paleontologists believe, from examining the bone structure, that dinosaurs grew very quickly like mammals. I think they said a T-Rex would reach full size is it's late teens.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, which is about 460x75x44 feet, with a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this at all. From peace4all's link, and from others I've seen, the standard boxcar has 5,328 cubic feet of space. That means 289, not 5222, stock cars could fit in the ark. And also keep in mind when sheep are packed into stockcars they are making a temporary trip---either to slaughter or shearing--and are packed in there so they can hardly move, let alone get acces to food and water. It's impossible for them to live for an entire year in this condition. I'd say maybe 60 could realistically live in a stockcar with enough space for food and water for. So, that gives a more realistic maximum number of animals of 17,340. Since there were 2 of each kind, and 7 of some kind, that means there were around 8,600 kinds of animals. Not very many to account for the amazing amount of biodiversity we see today.

Without getting into all the math (see the article How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?, or for more detail the book: Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study), the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space)."
Click to expand...
The math from the book makes ridiculous assumptions and uses incorrect numbers.
 
No matter what evidence is presented Atheists and skeptics who do not believe the biblical account of the flood will not accept it.

I urge people to look at the link I presented and evaluate the information for yourselves.

Jesus believed the story of Noah and quotes it.

Many people who claim to be believers must think Christ was not very smart.

Jesus believed the story of Noah and the flood, Lot and Sodom, Jonah and Adam and Eve.

What kind of faith can a person have who can't believe the written word?

The bible clearly warns us of these scoffers and skeptics. It talks about their willing ignnorance and fate.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The bible clearly teaches that the story of Noah and the flood as genuine.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

So called Christians can call Christ and the bible ignorant if they want to but they will give an account to God for doing so.
 
"I think they said a T-Rex would reach full size is it's late teens. "

Maybe the dinasours were in their ealy teens are younger... :D

The point is the bible story of the ark is true...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 6-2000.asp

Excerpt from above site... :-D

Conclusion

"The Bible is reliable in all areas, including its account of the Ark (and the worldwide catastrophic Flood). A Christian doesn’t have to have a blind faith to believe that there really was an Ark. What the Bible says about the Ark can even be measured and tested today.

As we say so often, all Christians should obey the commandment to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.†(1 Peter 3:15), which is particularly important today in our age when so many people mock the Bible using so-called “scienceâ€Â. And 2 Cor. 10:5 says: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.¢â‚¬Â




[/b]
 
bibleberean said:
No matter what evidence is presented Atheists and skeptics who do not believe the biblical account of the flood will not accept it.

I urge people to look at the link I presented and evaluate the information for yourselves.

Jesus believed the story of Noah and quotes it.
Click to expand...
This is mostly a problem if you assume the whole Bible is literally true. Some Christians do not do that.

For example, the Bible writers said that the Earth was immovable. We know that is not the case. So whatever arguments that allow for you to dismiss the immovable Earth, should let you dismiss a world flood.

Quath
 
Regardless of whether or not certain aspects of Noah's Flood are scientifically feasible, the very simple fact remains is that if it is literally true, some "miracles" or violations of known laws must have been violated.

At the very least....

1. Raining for 40 days straight
2. All the animals willingly coming in pairs (or sevens) from all around the world
3. Where the water came from and went (even if you subscribe to a canopy idea, the existance of the canopy and it's "opening" still would be miracles"
4. Rainbows did not exist before the flood

That's just a few. So why try and justify a few scientific facts (badly, in my opinion, but that is neither here nor there)?

It's like proving that water has two hydrogen and one oxyen atom. A proven scientific fact, but irrelevant to the idea of that same water covering the whole earth. So is proving that ark possibly could have held the animals says nothing about other required miracles.

The few above, and others, are unprovable scientifically, so it is an excercise in futility to prove some aspects, but not all.

Secondly, if all the allegations of the flood could be scientifically proven, then there is no need to credit God for it. Since it can all be explained scientifically, there is no "miracle" or violation of physical laws and God had nothing to do with it....it was just something that "happened".

Third, if the evidence for the flood is so overwhelmingly abundant, then there really is no faith. You are basing your beliefs of empirical observations, not internal faith. It also takes away the free will argument, in that if the evidence is so clear, then you have no choice but to believe in God.
 
bibleberean said:
The point is the bible story of the ark is true...
Click to expand...
Yes, the Biblical story of the ark is true. However, your fantastical version of flood which requires God to alter dozens of natural laws to flood the entire planet is nowhere in the Bible. The King James translators are wrong yet again with how they interpreted the Hebrew in this passage.

Read here for the Biblical perspective on the flood. Listen to YECs if you want to hear absurd fairytales that distort the truth God has given us.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
 
God flooded the entire planet...


And all people died except Noah, his, sons and their wives.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Does Scripture require a global Flood?
by John D. Morris

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /flood.asp

"Of course, some of the words, such as 'all flesh died' (7:21) might be interpreted as meaning all living things within the local area, as some modern 'scholars' claim. But when a word can have more than one meaning, the context must define its true meaning. And in Genesis 6-10, the context is one of a global Flood! More than 30 times, words and phrases of global scope appear. In each case, the primary meaning is one of totality, but when they are all together, the meaning is crystal clear.

Compare this clear teaching with the teachings of Christ and the New Testament writers, and the conclusion is inescapable. Trying to salvage the local flood idea makes nonsense out of New Testament doctrine.

For example: the local flood theory logically implies that the Indians in North America, the natives in Africa, the Scandinavians, the Chinese, etc., were not affected by the Flood. They escaped God's judgment on sin. If so, what could Christ possibly have meant when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37-79) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come. Scripture does not stand if the Flood was not global."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top