Noah and the Ark

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by notofworks

In my bible commentary I've written, I've determined that "save the sick" means "provide a way to pay for the medical bills" and "raise him up" is speaking of the rapture.

[Timmy]

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

While I agree with your apparent desire to moderate the overly enthusiastic zealotry of some, you also have to keep in mind that whenever you read words like "all things" an ellipses is probably intended by the writer.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

While I agree with your apparent desire to moderate the overly enthusiastic zealotry of some, you also have to keep in mind that whenever you read words like "all things" an ellipses is probably intended by the writer.

OK. The point is that faith is the requirement. That's what accomplishes things.

[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]

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

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

On what points?

[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!