It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Noah and the great flood, unanswered questions

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Wait, wasn't it the mountain of Ararat where the ark landed according to Bible?


The Bible actually says the "mountains of Ararat", not "Mount Ararat". I also believe the ark is to be found in Iran area as well.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

If you're truly interested in hearing what us Christians, or more precisely, young-Earth creations believe then why start a thread on ATS asking random normal folks these questions? ....


Because this is a discussion forum. I'm interested in the discussion and different points of view.

I have already seen you state "only animals" where another stated "all living creatures".

(also sparks a big curiosity as to what snakes were on the ark....if any)


I consider snakes to be animals, I could be ignorant of that though.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
....
"1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)"
....

Hope that clarifies your confusion.


Actually sort of adds a bit of confusion.....I find it difficult to separate that belief from evolution.

I know canines are commonly used example....but what about the platypus, or how about the opossum (not a rodent, but rather a marsupial)

(and since this is a global forum careful not to confuse the two, Opossum is native to north america, Possum is not)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Because the bible is a condensed book of the events that took place. If God had told Moses everything he did and what went on Moses would still be writing the Torah today. .....



OK, so I see you recognize Noah did exist.

Do you believe there was a flood?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
....
"1) kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)"
....

Hope that clarifies your confusion.


Actually sort of adds a bit of confusion.....I find it difficult to separate that belief from evolution.

I know canines are commonly used example....but what about the platypus, or how about the opossum (not a rodent, but rather a marsupial)

(and since this is a global forum careful not to confuse the two, Opossum is native to north america, Possum is not)


What what do you want to do with the knowledge that many, many years ago when the KJB was translated into English there was no terminology "species" available to be used? It's okay for secularists like yourself to believe that every different breed of dog today came from a common dog ancestor, yet it's not okay to believe every different breed of dog we see today came from a pair of dogs on Noah's ark?

Opossum is the correct terminology if I'm not mistaken, around here we call them "possum" for short. Much like the correct term to be used is "raccoon", yet we shorten it to just say "coon". At least that's my understanding, again, I could be ignorant about opossums.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by vogon42
 



I find it difficult to separate that belief from evolution.


Have you ever heard someone say "I never would have seen it if I never believed it." The likewise is also true.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



Wait, wasn't it the mountain of Ararat where the ark landed according to Bible?


The Bible actually says the "mountains of Ararat", not "Mount Ararat". I also believe the ark is to be found in Iran area as well.


Yes, but the literal Hebrew word, har (plural harîm, plural possessive harê), translated as "mountains" can also mean "hills" and is translated as "hills" in other areas of the OT. There are no mountains in the southern Tigris–Euphrates valley where Noah lived, only higher or lower hills on a flat alluvial plain. The nearest mountains are beyond the horizon.

I know, I know, I'm wrong.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What what do you want to do with the knowledge that many, many years ago when the KJB was translated into English there was no terminology "species" available to be used?



Origin of SPECIES

Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look — more at spy
First Known Use: 14th century

www.merriam-webster.com...
That's over 300 years before the KJV Bible was translated from the Latin.

So, sorry, you are incorrect.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


... yourself to believe that every different breed of dog today came from a common dog ancestor, yet it's not okay to believe every different breed of dog we see today came from a pair of dogs on Noah's ark?

Opossum is the correct terminology if I'm not mistaken, around here we call them "possum" for short. Much like the correct term to be used is "raccoon", yet we shorten it to just say "coon". At least that's my understanding, again, I could be ignorant about opossums.


Actually the "O" is silent.
but rather than the enunciation I'm concerned about the evolution of the critter. (had hope to step away from the dog example)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vogon42
 



I find it difficult to separate that belief from evolution.


Have you ever heard someone say "I never would have seen it if I never believed it." The likewise is also true.


No, actually I don't believe I have.....sounds like the logic is a bit backwards.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 



why do you feel the need to make posts like this that attempt to destroy other's faith?


Why do you accuse people who are of another faith of "attempting to destroy yours"? That is beyond rude, and it is the typical response from Christians who find themselves painted into a corner. How are your efforts considered "saving someone", but the challenges of others are "destroying faith"?

Do you realize how much of a double-standard that is? If you know that people who disagree with your faith are here, why do you come to these threads? I don't go to your church and start hollering that you're "trying to destroy the faith of anyone not here today!" You are not able to destroy my faith, because it is held within myself safely and firmly.

I come to these threads to try to get a grasp of how Bible Literalists think....because, frankly, I just don't understand the circular logic and unquestioning acquiescence.

But that's the whole point of the Bible. It was written by some who were (arguably sketchy) journalists and unofficial biographers, or repeating ancient mythological legends they heard somewhere, and then some folks took those writings, edited and compiled and switched round and "translated" it all into something impossible for everyone to easily understand -- and they did it for those very people -- the ones who don't think for themselves.

I would say, Well, ExcUUUUSE me for thinking and asking "why do you say that/believe that" -- but that would be rude. And, I'm happy to say, one thing I havediscovered by looking at this forum is the absolute consistency of that type of Christian person who believes it on "blind faith" alone. They are challenged, start to feel defeated or shaken, and then they get NASTY. Every time. So, see??? I'm learning, by watching and reading what that type of Christian person is really like, and how they think.

Sadly, many of those who claim Jesus is the Only Way are not allowed to do that, "they must accept what the church says,", so if anyone else does it, surely that person is going to hell and trying to destroy the faith of others.

Pretty weak, in my opinion, as far as faith goes. But, as an experiment, in reproducing the same results, I feel I've pretty much proven that it is so....that that type of Christian person behaves in a predictable way when faced with the same challenges.

Thankfully, I have learned to stop letting it bother me.
Peace


edit on 1-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
If seen as a local event, the 2 x 2 animals might actually be plausible. But world wide the shear weight from every animal in that amount is staggering.

I think there was a catastrophic flood but not globally. This does not disrespect the power of God



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vogon42
 



I find it difficult to separate that belief from evolution.


Have you ever heard someone say "I never would have seen it if I never believed it." The likewise is also true.


No, actually I don't believe I have.....sounds like the logic is a bit backwards.


It's a saying highlighting the fact that if a person refuses to believe something even if they see it right before their eyes they will still refuse to believe. Or as Edmund Spencer famously stated:

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is condemnation before investigation."

--Edmund Spencer


And there is a Proverb showing the same problem with deciding a matter before hearing it/seeing it:


"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" ~ Proverbs 18:13



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is condemnation before investigation."

--Edmund Spencer


Nice one!

And it states very clearly why some people refuse to look at evidence and information presented to them, before their very eyes, even if its politely dropped in their laps, because they have ALREADY CONDEMNED those offering the information in advance...and so they say, "I don't need to read it, hear it, watch it...and why are you trying to 'destroy my faith!?' ".

Read it again: 'cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.
Cannot fail = succeeds every time. SUCCEEDS EVERY TIME to keep man in EVERLASTING IGNORANCE.

edit on 1-1-2012 by wildtimes because: to make it as simple to understand as possible.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

..................

And there is a Proverb showing the same problem with deciding a matter before hearing it/seeing it:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" ~ Proverbs 18:13



Ah ha... I see the issue here. You think I have already decided.
When in actuality, I am simply asking a question.

So, let me state....NO I have not decided.
I am stating that I have difficulty separating that belief from evolution. As in ASKING
Doesn't that sort of conflict with the theory of evolution?

(no need to project a decision on me, but if you can answer the question I would be interested in the answer)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Because the bible is a condensed book of the events that took place. If God had told Moses everything he did and what went on Moses would still be writing the Torah today. .....



OK, so I see you recognize Noah did exist.

Do you believe there was a flood?


Yes to both questions. The bible was written as a history of the Israelites and how God made them his chosen people. What does the word chosen mean in the bible? It means they were chosen to do God's work, he picked them to be the priests of nations not just to their own people. Jesus came to remind them of that during his ministry. He had more than one reason for coming to earth. Yes he died for our sins so that whoever believes in him should not be destroyed, but he also came to teach man how to live in accordance to the Father (Abba).

Science does corroborate the bible, its just non believers do not see it because they do not read the bible and because they do not belong to Christ they have not his Holy Spirit to show them the story written in the words.

Think on this. Science says man evolved correct? What is evolution? It is change in it simplest form of the word. Now, think back to Adam and Eve. God gave them all the trees in the garden to eat from except the tree of knowledge correct? So, look deeper into the story behind the words. They were gatherers, they gathered their food from the trees and bushes in Eden to eat from. Well what do you know? Evolution says man were gatherers first.

Now think back to after Adam and Eve fell, God killed an animal and clothed them in to cover their shame (nakedness). So what does that mean? It means that, not only was Adam and Eve naked before they fell but they were also gatherers that did not hunt. Well what do you know? Evolution says, that man originated as gatherers that ran around naked as they hadn't begun to hunt and make clothes to cover their nakedness.

Now Cain and Abel hit the scene years later. Cain was a tiller (planter of crops) and Abel was a shepherd (livestock domestication). Well what do you know? Science (Archeaology) and history states that farming and domestication appeared in the world about the same time.

Cain slays Abel and God places a curse on Cain and sends him away after he murdered Abel. Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife and becomes the builder of the first city (civilization). Well what do you know? Science (archeaology) says that domestication of animals and farming bothcame before cities (civilization) were ever built.

If you know how to look for it, science corroborates the bible, not the other way around. The Bible came first and science came later in what we call the modern era. Now who wrote the Torah? Moses didn't write the first Torah, Yahweh (pronounced YAH-U-WAH) wrote it. Moses came down from the summit on Mt. Sinai and saw his people worshipping a golden calf (Idol) and in his rage he threw the Torah God wrote with his own hand and destroyed the calf. God called him back to the summit and made Moses rewrite it with his own hand as punishment.

Now ask yourself, how did Moses know anything about science? He didn't. So who told him? Yahweh did, who has knowledge of a great many things we can never imagine. The words in the bible and science both corrobarate the existence of God. Atheists and non-believers try so hard to prove he doesn't exist when the evidence they seek is right in front of their eyes but they cannot see it because they do not have the Holy Spirit teaching them to see behind whats in front of their eyes. In fact, the bible is plum full of these little gems i just showed you. Only fools scoff and laugh at things they know nothing about. The bible is real and God exists.

Whats is the goal of ATS? To deny ignorance. Behold all unbelievers, your refusal to believe in God shows that you revel in your ignorance.
edit on 1-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Originally posted by vogon42
....
Got mixed signals as a child.....and its still not clear to me what the real story is.



The first thing you need to do is stop trying to take the story literally,. There was no Noah. There was no Ark. The animals did not ride in the ark two by two.

ok so, no Noah and no Ark.



... Why do you even bring up a localized Black Sea flood?

because my original post is a question as to why some say it was LOCAL, and some say it was GLOBAL.


That's not in scripture either. Scripture says ALL the animals, period......


but the ALL the animals what? If there were no Noah, and no Ark.....why the mention of all the animals.

I'm rather puzzled by your response. Would you mind clarifying it?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

......
Whats is the goal of ATS? To deny ignorance. Behold all unbelievers, your refusal to believe in God shows that you revel in your ignorance.....


Actually there is nothing in my OP that say I refuse to believe in god.
Why do you assume that....it makes no sense.

As far as your ignorance part...I'm asking two QUESTIONS. Which would seem to indicate a quest for knowledge, rather than ignorance.

Now.....after your two posts...your are coming close to answering ONE of those questions.

Can you remain calm enough to answer them.....or do you need to continue with the condescending attitude?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 



It says the waves were "like mountains" and not "above the mountains".


Why would the Qur'an compare waves to "mountains" if they weren't close to the height of a mountain?


Tsunami? The waves, when large LOOK LIKE MOUNTAINS.


Lol, no, perhaps they may look like a large house, or as tall as a tree. A mountain is generally thousands of feet taller.

And a "Tsunami" is not a flood, it's a very large "wave".


The Qur'an version of it is still more scientifically plausible, than the Bible "global" one.

Say, how did a Kangaroo get to the ark? Did it SWIM all the way to Mesopotamia?


And I REPEAT my question: If the unbelievers saw the loooooong line of animals, all walking fine in line going to the ark, wouldn't that not have been a huge sign that Noah was indeed onto something, so they would have gone to the ark too?




edit on 1/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

......
Whats is the goal of ATS? To deny ignorance. Behold all unbelievers, your refusal to believe in God shows that you revel in your ignorance.....


Actually there is nothing in my OP that say I refuse to believe in god.
Why do you assume that....it makes no sense.

As far as your ignorance part...I'm asking two QUESTIONS. Which would seem to indicate a quest for knowledge, rather than ignorance.

Now.....after your two posts...your are coming close to answering ONE of those questions.

Can you remain calm enough to answer them.....or do you need to continue with the condescending attitude?


There was no condescension in my post. and for the record, yes i did answer your questions. I did not say you didn't believe in God i was addressing those who do not while replying to you and if you thought i was attacking you i am sorry, i was not.

I said before in my last post. Yes to both questions.
edit on 1-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join