The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

prinz

Spanish Arch? Fusilier's Arch?

Gurgle: you forgot the mercy and salvation of your "God Mk 1".

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Gurgle: you forgot the mercy and salvation of your "God Mk 1".

Funny that wasn't the first thing he thought of when discussing the Flood ... :pac:

Glenman

If you are a Christian who belives in the New Testament than you should believe in Noah's arch because Jesus talks about it in Mathew 24:36
Are there any belivers using this forum? Did Mathew make this up?

Gurgle

prinz wrote: »

Gurgle: you forgot the mercy and salvation of your "God Mk 1".

I may have missed something: Mercy and salvation in drowning everyone and everything?

Didn't mercy & salvation come in with God Mk II (New Testament)

Gurgle

Glenman wrote: »

Are there any belivers using this forum?

A couple, they'll be along shortly followed by the banhammer.

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

I may have missed something: Mercy and salvation in drowning everyone and everything?

Didn't mercy & salvation come in with God Mk II (New Testament)

Nope mercy and salvation came when God instructed Noah to save two of every living creature, so they could continue.

Wrath and Vengeance would be better served without Noah's Ark at all surely? Unlike what you said above God did not drown everyone and everything, if you cannot see that you're missing the point of the flood and Ark completely.

robindch

Glenman wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis?

Other than the Book of Genesis and the bible more widely, no, there certainly isn't.

Glenman wrote: »

Could the story about Noah's Arch be true?

As it's written in Genesis, no, it's a myth and quite obviously so. The story of Noah's Ark is virtually identical to a much earlier tale contained within a Sumerian myth called the Epic of Gilgamesh. The names changed, but the angry god, the righteous believer, the deal between the two, the flood, the ark, the doves, and many other bits are identical across the two stories. If you believe that Noah story is true, then you have to explain why the Sumerians have an identical earlier myth.

Glenman wrote: »

Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

No, it's currently believed that they died out because of the effects of an enormous asteroid impact some 65 million years or so ago.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest the Creationism thread is probably the place to do it.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Wrath and Vengeance would be better served without Noah's Ark at all surely?

The mind boggles

That is like saying the Columbine shootings (10 years this month) were not about wrath and vengeance because the shooters let one of the students go (one of the kids was told as he met the shooters in the hall that they "Liked him" and that he was to go home) and we should focus not on the wrath of the shooters who shot 40 people but the mercy of them for letting one of them go.

When was the last time you heard someone go "Weren't those boys merciful..." ??

humanji

Glenman wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis? Could the story about Noah's Arch be true? Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

Well, since you're on the Christianity forum, I assume you want the Christian version (although I'm agnostic, so I'm pretty much winging it ).

The only evidence for the 10,000 year old earth is the Bible. But only Creationists believe that it's only that old, and not all Christians are Creationists. In fact, I think the majority believe in evolution and that God is the force behind it.

The story of the ark could be true, but not on the epic scale that is assumed. It all depends on how litereally you take the Bible. The flood could of been in a localised area and it may not have been two of every animal (and I think the Bible actualy says it's something like 7 of each animal, not two?).

Again, Creationists would probably think some rubbish like that, but I'd say most Christians believe that they simply died out.

As I say, I'm agnostic, so I'm more than open to correction.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

As it's written in Genesis, no, it's a myth and quite obviously so. The story of Noah's Ark is virtually identical to a much earlier tale contained within a Sumerian myth called the Epic of Gilgamesh. The names changed, but the angry god, the righteous believer, the deal between the two, the flood, the ark, the doves, and many other bits are identical across the two stories.

I can't and don't argue with that. Given that the Israelites originated in the lands of Sumeria it's pretty simple to see how the story of creation was transferred.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

The mind boggles

That is like saying the Columbine shootings (10 years this month) were not about wrath and vengeance because the shooters let one of the students go (one of the kids was told as he met the shooters in the hall that they "Liked him" and that he was to go home) and we should focus not on the wrath of the shooters who shot 40 people but the mercy of them for letting one of them go.

When was the last time you heard someone go "Weren't those boys merciful..." ??

Are you insinuating that the Great Flood is as historically accurate as the Columbine killings? Interesting.

You're missing the point of the story if you cannot see how God was being represented. It's not about a wrathful vengeful God, but about how He saved those who truly accepted Him.

prinz

humanji wrote: »

(and I think the Bible actualy says it's something like 7 of each animal, not two?).

As I say, I'm agnostic, so I'm more than open to correction.

The Bible says two.Corrected . Genesis 6:19. KJV

Gurgle

prinz wrote: »

It's ... how He saved those who truly accepted Him.

Saving them from his own Wrath and Vengence?

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

Saving them from his own Wrath and Vengence?

Yes. Like I said you forgot the rest of the story. It's a bit unfair to pick'n'mix whatever you like. I did not say you were wrong, I merely added in a few other attributes to even things up.

kiffer

prinz wrote: »

The Bible says two.Corrected . Genesis 6:19. KJV

Correction it says 2 of every kind... and 7 of every "clean" kind and birds.
Genesis 7:2-3

Naz_st

prinz wrote: »

The Bible says two.Corrected . Genesis 6:19. KJV

It also says seven for some (the bible can be confusing like that:)):

Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

7:3 "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

A "clean beast" I think meant they were koshir...

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Are you insinuating that the Great Flood is as historically accurate as the Columbine killings? Interesting.

You're missing the point of the story if you cannot see how God was being represented. It's not about a wrathful vengeful God, but about how He saved those who truly accepted Him.

Are you insinuating that the Flood is just a story, with a myth like theme and message, rather than a historical record? Interesting.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you insinuating that the Flood is just a story, with a myth like theme and message, rather than a historical record? Interesting.

No. I'm stating that as my belief. However that is far less shocking for a Christian to believe, than for a non-Christian to insinuate that it is historically accurate.imho of course.

prinz

kiffer wrote: »

Correction it says 2 of every kind... and 7 of every "clean" kind and birds.
Genesis 7:2-3

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-many-kinds-did-noah-bring-ark-two-or-seven


Wouldn't be much use in saving two of each only to sacrifice one later. Two of each species were saved.

keane2097

prinz wrote: »

You're missing the point of the story if you cannot see how God was being represented. It's not about a wrathful vengeful God, but about how He saved those who truly accepted Him.

Well I think the problem with your argument here is fairly obvious.

God's display of "mercy" by saving Noah and his family along with a variety of animal species is completely overbalanced by his killing of every other person, man, woman and child besides Noah's family.

Added to this the step of killing what can be assumed to be an enormous number of animals who I doubt had committed too many sins and you have your mercy fairly wiped out.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-many-kinds-did-noah-bring-ark-two-or-seven

You gotta love Noah's implied attitude to the environment -- preserve seven of every "clean" species on earth, then kill five of them for religious reasons.

Sheesh.

prinz

keane2097 wrote: »

Well I think the problem with your argument here is fairly obvious.

God's display of "mercy" by saving Noah and his family along with a variety of animal species is completely overbalanced by his killing of every other person, man, woman and child besides Noah's family.

Added to this the step of killing what can be assumed to be an enormous number of animals who I doubt had committed too many sins and you have your mercy fairly wiped out.

Eh no not really. Given that the point of the story was to illustrate how God saved those who still accepted and were faithful to Him, and how mighty God was that He could cause such a calamity, then it is pretty spot on. Believe in and be faithful in God and you will be saved.

The book clearly anoints Noah and his retinue as the only people left worth saving, i.e. it was not given as a massacre of innocents, as the only 'innocent' people left were Noah and his family, who were therefore saved by God's mercy.

If He was all that vengeful and murderous why not kill everyone?

prinz

robindch wrote: »

You gotta love Noah's implied attitude to the environment -- preserve seven of every "clean" species on earth, then kill five of them for religious reasons.

Sheesh.

Perhaps when we have a time machine we can transport Al Gore back to Sumeria to correct it for you.

Fanny Cradock

Glenman wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis? Could the story about Noah's Arch be true? Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

The notion that the Earth is c. 6,000 years old stems mainly from the work carried out by a certain Bishop James Ussher. Sometime in the 17th Century he sat down with the Bible, looked closely at the genealogies contained within, added one generation to another and came up with a figure. This was a deeply flawed analysis, IMO, but it didn't have a huge impact on the ordinary punter up until quite recently. In fact, I believe that the entrenched support for YEC (young earth creationism) - predominantly associated with parts of America, but not exclusive to it - can traced back to moments like the Scopes Trial in mid 1920's. Deep lines where drawn in the sand.

One doesn't have to read Genesis story as a literal account. I don't and many other Christians out there happily share the notion that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old and that evolution has shaped the biological landscape. Read up on theistic evolution if you are interested.

With regards to the traditional world wide flood, it does seem like a problem for the Christian. I feel that there are so many improbabilities associated with the story that it simply can't be true in its traditional form. Simply put, it doesn't float. I would certainly favour the notion that the flood was a localised event.

There are a couple of interesting articles that propose a localised flood here and here. Interesting alternatives!

kiffer

prinz wrote: »

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-many-kinds-did-noah-bring-ark-two-or-seven


Wouldn't be much use in saving two of each only to sacrifice one later. Two of each species were saved.

Gee I assumed it was also because they wanted herds of animals which they could eat after the flood.... no point taking so few sheep that you can't get enough mutton or wool...

Also we only hear about them sacrificing a few of the extra sheep not all superfluous clean animals.

Eitherway, I am correct, the Noah supposedly saved 7 every clean animal, 7 of every bird, and 2 of unclean beasts from the flood. (or 7, 7 and 2 pairs).

DublinWriter

prinz wrote: »

Believe in and be faithful in God and you will be saved.

So basically it's "believe in God's everlasting love, or suffer his everlasting wrath"?

prinz wrote: »

If He was all that vengeful and murderous why not kill everyone?

Maybe because then there'd be noone left to worship him?

keane2097

prinz wrote: »

Eh no not really. Given that the point of the story was to illustrate how God saved those who still accepted and were faithful to Him, and how mighty God was that He could cause such a calamity, then it is pretty spot on. Believe in and be faithful in God and you will be saved.

The point of the story? Surely the point of the story is the meaning taken from it due to its contents?

If I tell a story about a man murdering a load of kids because a voice in his head told him to I can claim the point of the story is anything I want, but the actual point is that you shouldn't always listen to voices in your head.

Just because you claim the point of the story is to show the mercy of God doesn't make any difference to the actual contents of the story, which show the protagonist to be a wanton killer of people, animals and plantlife.

Your argument seems to suggest that your idea of divine mercy is God not killing innocent people.

prinz wrote: »

If He was all that vengeful and murderous why not kill everyone?

Because being vengeful and murderous only requires killing people you don't like - killing everyone indiscriminately is not a requirement.

Vengeful means you punish people for wrongs they have committed against you in the past, murderous means killing people.

This post of yours proves, if any further proof was needed, that most arguments on boards.ie could be solved by simple investment in a dictionary.

prinz

keane2097 wrote: »

This post of yours proves, if any further proof was needed, that most arguments on boards.ie could be solved by simple investment in a dictionary.

Good one.Great contribution.

keane2097 wrote: »

The point of the story? Surely the point of the story is the meaning taken from it due to its contents?

And due to it's contents, the meaning to be taken, was belief and faith in God and turning away from wickedness, thus ensuring salvation.

So what's your point.

Naz_st

prinz wrote: »

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/how-many-kinds-did-noah-bring-ark-two-or-seven


Wouldn't be much use in saving two of each only to sacrifice one later. Two of each species were saved.

So Noah sacrificed one of every kind of bird and "clean" animal? That is one sh1tload of dead animals! This is on top of all the dead animals from the cataclysm of the flood! Geez, what has God got against all these animals anyway!? I'll bet the donkeys were coveting their neighbour's asses, but what about the rest!

There is a kind of irony though for those animals who went aboard and were the lucky ones who managed to avoid being killed in the worldwide destruction of the flood only to be burnt on an altar!

prinz

DublinWriter wrote: »

So basically it's "believe in God's everlasting love, or suffer his everlasting wrath"?


Maybe because then there'd be noone left to worship him?

No, it's turn away from sin and wickedness, or else reap the reward of that path.

He could always have started again . Fortunately for us He saw something worth saving in humanity.