my boy noah. Options

[ReggieM]

and his ark, well if something like hurricane katrina could happen and there were levees protecting water from coming in, isnt it very much possible that noah's ark really occured
(mainly for the non believers).

[sadolakced acid]

Well, it most probably happened, but definatly not like the bible says.

1. there is simply not enough water in the world to flood the world. maybe a large lowlying region, but not the world.

2. There is no way Noah would be able to get two of every animal, then redistribute them to their respective continents. Sure, if you allowed for evolution then you could explain the differences of species between continents, but then again, we don't exactly believe in that, do we? and plus, it would take much too long.

[WickedDreamer]

2. There is no way Noah would be able to get two of every animal, then redistribute them to their respective continents. Sure, if you allowed for evolution then you could explain the differences of species between continents, but then again, we don't exactly believe in that, do we? and plus, it would take much too long.

Weren't all the continents connected at some point? I swear I read somewhere that the continents were all together and then slowly pulled apart and now they are slowly moving in the oppisite direction....

of course that all could of been some really vivid dream.

[Simba]

Pangaea or some ish.

[kimmytree]

Weren't all the continents connected at some point? I swear I read somewhere that the continents were all together and then slowly pulled apart and now they are slowly moving in the oppisite direction....

of course that all could of been some really vivid dream.

Yeah, that's a theory alot of people believe I think. But still, that'd be one heck of a continent! It would have been impossible for him to have traveled from one end to another to collect two of each species.

[sadolakced acid]

well, sure, it might work that way, but then you'd have to believe in that theory as well as evolution. And plus, at that point there were no humans either.

god supposedly created the earth as is; therefore, plate tectonics and evolution cannot be used to explain noah's ark... it's just plain contradictory.

[*Flair*]

Before I contribute, what are levees?

Edit// Nevermind.

I don't know much about the bible but how long did the flood last?

[xKatt]

Before I contribute, what are levees?

Edit// Nevermind.

I don't know much about the bible but how long did the flood last?

Water poured from the heavens for 40 days and the flood lasted 150 days.

[cori-catastrophe]

god supposedly created the earth as is; therefore, plate tectonics and evolution cannot be used to explain noah's ark... it's just plain contradictory.

where does it say that?

[*MyMichelle*]

the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. It may have all been just an exaggeration. ^_^"

[illriginal]

Well the Ark "could" be symbolic. For example, Bahá'u'lláh, states that the references to the Ark and the Flood in both the Bible and the Quran are symbolic.[14] In Bahá'í belief, only Noah's followers were spiritually alive, preserved in the ark of his teachings, as others were spiritually dead.

That's the teaching in the Bahá'í faith.

[sadolakced acid]

where does it say that?

genesis?

sure, the ark could be symbolic- but for those who view the bible as the actual representation of history, this interpretation isn't correct.

granted, these are the people who believed that adam and eve rode to church on dinosaurs... but still.

[illriginal]

genesis?

sure, the ark could be symbolic- but for those who view the bible as the actual representation of history, this interpretation isn't correct.

What do you mean by, "those who view the bible as the actual representation of history"?

[xKatt]

What do you mean by, "those who view the bible as the actual representation of history"?

Those who take the Bible literally and believe that it documents the creation of the world and all the other historic events accurately.

[illriginal]

Those who take the Bible literally and believe that it documents the creation of the world and all the other historic events accurately.

Oh ok, cuz the Bible is to be taken in Parables, examples, and symbolism. Some of it is literal such as the events.

[*Flair*]

I honestly do not believe that Noah travelled around the world while it rained heavily in 150 days. Who do you think he is? Superman?
I would say that it's just a story invented by bored people to amaze you (Christians). Anyway, like someone mentioned, the bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I'm sure it has some kind of meaning or lesson for Christians.

[ReggieM]

true that jesus spoke in parrabels(sp) but maybe there werent alot of animals back then? Like some evolved and made different species and what not.

[illriginal]

I honestly do not believe that Noah travelled around the world while it rained heavily in 150 days. Who do you think he is? Superman?
I would say that it's just a story invented by bored people to amaze you (Christians). Anyway, like someone mentioned, the bible shouldn't be taken word for word. I'm sure it has some kind of meaning or lesson for Christians.

It is possible that God's days were equivalent to thousands. 1 Day to God is 1000 years. So it could be 150,000 years, thus making it obvious that it couldn't been taken literally. Instead it would make complete sense that it's symbolic. Like a lot of the Bible was scripted to be.

But then again, it could be literal. If it was, it's on top/in a mountain.

And you're right the Bible should not be taken word for word, it's not meant to be completely literal.

[uninspiredfae]

I've brought up this question before but I'll bring it up again in case someone will take a gander.

It is rather convenient for people to decide what should be literal and what is figurative. If decades from now, science is able to undeniably prove that Noah's ark existed and that the Great Flood did occur, then people will say that the Bible is literal. If otherwise, they can say it's figurative; take it as a symbolic story.

How can we have this fickle, topsy-turvy understanding of the Bible, when it is the authority of Christian knowledge?

[illriginal]

I've brought up this question before but I'll bring it up again in case someone will take a gander.

It is rather convenient for people to decide what should be literal and what is figurative. If decades from now, science is able to undeniably prove that Noah's ark existed and that the Great Flood did occur, then people will say that the Bible is literal.

Sadly you're right... people would take everything literal for that lol.

[kimmytree]

Oh ok, cuz the Bible is to be taken in Parables, examples, and symbolism. Some of it is literal such as the events.

It's a shame that most Protestants dont see things that way though. They have to take everything literally. I still dont understand how someone could possibly believe that everything was created in 6 days, that Noah took 2 of each animal on the Ark, and especially that we're all damned if we dont believe in Jesus.

[ReggieM]

bible uses parables cuz Parables make teachings easier to remember and apply.

Social problems come and go. The way it is becomes the way it was. Old sermons addressing old social problems are out of touch with today. Parables deal with basic principles, whereas telling it like it is deals with how those principles apply to specific situations.