Ah, excuse me...it's God who came up with the idea of flooding the entire earth, not messianic sects. And yes, it was about grave sins...and not just limited to the grave sins of locals in the northern Iraq.

Genesis tells us that after the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden, mankind became more sinful. "And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times," declared the enormity of the sins which was so provoking as to destroy all human beings save for Noe and his family. 6:5-6,   

yes, kill all the innocent with the bad, destroy all animals, etc... makes perfect sense... despite god being powerful enough to, say, selectively kill all the firmborns, he can't just selectively kill all the bad people.

Also, there was a flood, it hit pretty hard in that area, it did not cover the land, it did not kill everyone, it did not affect other continents, there was no ark, and it was not caused by god.

Again, the Bible doesn't tell of such a flood, only later translations do.

And those translations were made by messianic sects.

It doesn't matter how often you feel that you can "excuse" yourself, but simply contradicting my statement (which I based on a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text) is not the same as correcting me.

If G-d had come up with the idea of flooding the entire world, He would have said so in the Bible. The fact that He did not confirms what we know about the number of species and the population of the world 4000 years ago.

Of course there was a flood. Mesopotamia floods regularly and I would be surprised if "Noah" of all people hadn't lived through one.

It did, as the Bible says, cover the entire land (the land being Aram Naharaim, i.e. northern Iraq), and it possibly did kill everyone in that land (note that that land is a gigantic valley formed around two gigantic rivers). It absolutely did not affect other continents.

There probably was an ark. (Why not?) It was of the size of a large trade boat. There were lots of boats of the type on the Tigiris and Uephrates at the time. They all transported people as well as animals and supplies.

Whether it was caused by G-d is a matter of faith. I think it was (like everything else is), you think it was not. That's the part the Bible claims that we cannot possibly prove.

But as for the other details, they are probably true as long as they remain possible. And a flood covering the entire land (of Aram Naharaim) is quite possible indeed. However, translating "land" as "planet Earth" and "all animals" as "all animals on Earth" makes the story physically impossible and, in case anybody cares, a non-literal interpretation.

Here is the dictionary entry that should clear up everything:

(Taltamir, correct me if I make mistakes, I am guessing the vowels.)

http://www.milon.co.il/general/general.php?term=land

The first word in the first row of Hebrew is "eretz" meaning "land", which is the word used in the Bible for the thing that is flooded. It is translated into Latin as "terra", which also means "land", and into German as "Erde", which means "land" and "planet Earth".

The first two words in the second row are infinitives of a different root meaning "to land". The first is a pa3al verb (active voice) "linachoth" = "to land" (same root as the name "Noach"), the second is a pi3el verb (causative) "lehanachith" = "to make someone land" (also same root).

I meant cover ALL land not THE land as in... I am sure you could section a plot of land on coordinates X,Y that was completely covered

Basically the flood was similar to the tsunami that hit asia a couple of years back, caused lots of damage in many countries, and then got hyped into a waterworld kind of deal.

Well, the flood apparently did cover "all the land" and the land was Noah's home land.

I think it probably was about Tsunami size, impactwise.

I can certainly buy that story much more than the one I was sold when going through sunday school.

According to the Bible the story was told to the Israelites 3300 years ago. But at that point the story was already well-known. Whatever Noah's real name was (we don't know), the Bible referred to him just as "the landed".

Imagine the world 3300 years ago and imagine a nation of shepherds. Do you think any of them had a round world completely overed in water in mind when they were told this story? Do you think they thought of kangaroos on the ark? Do you think G-d didn't know that these people had no idea that the world was round and that there were kangaroos in Australia?

The entire idea that the story is telling us of a world-wide flood is ludicrous. The text doesn't say it and the audience had no way of even imagining it.

I am absolutely sure the bible's recording of an ark and a flood are accurate.  I've studied this at length and given much time and effort into it.  What I found in my studies of this time period are amazing in that there is no way someone could make all this up.  The whole ark story is a picture of Christ.  Jesus himself gave credence to this story by saying that the last days will be just like the days of Noah....men and women will be drinking and eating and marrying and then BAM....they will fall to their knees when the judgment of God comes upon the earth yet once again.  I believe we're close and the attitudes and actions of the people today are very close to being the same as "in the days of Noah."   Just as they didn't believe Noah back then neither will they believe us. 

Just a few of my very brief thoughts as I read what you all were saying.....

yes it does even in the earliest translations.....and Moses wrote about this way before any Messianic sects (whom are you speaking of) came into play. 

This was the first time it rained according to the scriptures.  Before this flood, caused by not only the rain falling from heaven but also the fountains from the deep exploding, there was merely a mist that watered the land.  Many call it a greenhouse atmosphere.  There was no flooding or rain before the flood. 

but it did.  The topography was changed as a result of the flood.  What we see today with the continents separated like this we did not have before the flood. 

He did.  Not only in the account in Genesis but also in the NT by the writings of the Apostles.  Like I showed you yesterday Leauki, there was a man whose name was Richard Dick Wilson who spoke and read 45 languages fluently and his research revealed that everyword of the OT scriptures translated into the English is correct.  He had no such qualms about the language like you seem to yet he mastered every language he could and did so for the express reason to be able to study the biblical languages to make sure what we were reading was correct.  His linguistic ability and his research was and is very valuable to us.

Yes faith in his word that what we are reading is indeed true...... but hopefully soon more evidence.  While there have been countless corroborating stories over the years about people seeing the ark (very large boat)  inbedded in rock in modern Turkey there is yet another group going up into those mountains to investigate this.  I heard there's an expedition going up this coming summer. 

the flood was nothing like the tsunami but the tsunami gives us a glimpse of how devestating a world wide flood could have been and how the animals could have moved onto that Ark.  That incidence in Indonesia gives us a glimpse of how it might have been that Moses wrote about thousands of years ago. 

so you'd rather believe a lie that man told than the truth that God revealed to us thru his word?  Hmmmm doesn't make sense to me but diff boats for diff folks. 

Yes it does and it makes absolute sense.  And we really do have a way of imagining it.  Why would you say that?  With the devestating tsunamis  it really does give us a modern take on an old account.  Just like God to do this.  Everything he does as the end nears is to give people every chance to see him and believe his revealed word to mankind.  That way nobody in their right mind when they stand before him will say......"I didn't know." 

that's the problem...it's not about what "YOU think" but all about what the records reveal. 

I am too absolutely sure the Bible's recording of an ark and a flood are accurate. I am just telling you that the Bible does NOT speak of a world-wide flood or an ark that rescued ALL species of animal.

It was the Christians who interpreted the story as a story about a world-wide flood. The Hebrew text does NOT say such.

Yes, and before those messianic sects the flood story was as the Bible told it: local to a certain land.

oh so I'm not credible because I don't speak Hebrew?  Or Greek? That's not true either because it really wouldn't matter because there are many who went before me who did speak and understand Greek and Hebrew and they weren't believed either.  It goes much deeper than that. 

 BTW....Latin came later...4th Century after the whole book was written and compiled.  If you want to be credible.....you should at least read this book before you spout off about something you don't know nor understand.  If you want a very literal English translation that is as close to the original languages as it can be go get yourself an NASB version.  The other versions are fine and good but the NASB is as close as one can get to the original as can be and still be readable in our language. 

really? And you know this as fact?  You didn't answer my questions...how many animals are we talking about?  How big is the boat?  You did the math?  Well I've got the numbers and know this is mathmatically very doable with room left over. This boat's dimensions (as written in scripture) are  pretty amazing.  Here's a quote from an author on this subject:

"The Ark was, according to the specifications laid down to be 300 cubits long by 500 cubits wide by 30 cubits highs.  The ratios of these numbers are very interesting.  They obviously reflect an advanced knowledge of ship building.  The Babylonian account which speaks of the Ark as a cube betrays complete ignorance.  Such a vessel would spin slowly around.  But the Bible ratios leave nothing to be desired."  Frederick Filby. 

Really?  Have you ever thought about hibernation?  Hmmm?  How long was the duration?  How many animals?   See El-D you're making assertions without having all the facts.  If you knew the facts you'd be better able to get at the truth.  But it's much easier to believe a lie.  I know that.  It's frustrating to read what you're saying here because I know you don't have all the facts yet you seem to be dogmatic. 

One of America's leading systematic taxonomists (expert) lists the following numbers for animal species according to the best estimates of modern taxonomy:

Mammals 3,500

Birds    8,600

Reptiles and amphibians    5,500

Worms      25,500

So we may reasonably conclude that no more than 35,000 individual vertebrate animals (probably average size of sheep) boarded this ark.  It has been estimated that a train hauling 150 boxcars could easily handle these animals.  But the Ark had a carrying capacity of more than 520 stock cars!  Plenty of room for the family and food to last the duration. 

the bible does mention these animals...but you've got to remember that the term dinosaur is a modern term brought up in the 1800's when these large animals started to get dug up.  So no, there's no Hebrew word dinosaur in scripture but the large animals thought to be dinos are in scripture... we know that dinos and humans didn't exist at the same time?  Really.  I don't know that.  Do you have privilege information?  You know this for sure?  Why because some Scientist said so?   I know the non-Christians want to believe that because they want to disprove scripture although from time to time we read about animals still roaming the earth today thought to be dinosaurs like some of the sea animals etc. 

of course you do.  Be honest.  When I hear the same parroting going on...I know. You have no idea how many times I've fielded these same, to the exact letter, questions.    It's the same old same old.  People are believing the same old lies because it's convenient and easier than searching out the truth themselves...that's why Jesus said "where your heart is there your treasure is also."  And it's the Christians  who are told they have no brains!!!  The studying and searching I've done over the last almost 40 years has not been easy...has taken alot of my time but at least I know that I'm not believing something just because someone told me so. 

Besides when you made that comment about man and dino's you got that from somewhere did you not?  Have you even taken into consideration paintings on caves 1500 years B.C. that include painting of brontosaurs?  According to the nature of their art, cavemen only painted from what they could actually see.  Thus they would have had to see a brontosaur in order to paint one.  And have you read the book of Job?  It's the oldest of all the biblical writings yet he writes some of the earliest writings about what we call dinos today.  I'm guessing that Job was aware of these very large animals.  But of course, the scientists are reporting something else (that keeps changing btw) so you need to believe them even though they have no hard packed evidence to rely on.  It's purely guesswork and conjecture based on their own prejudice and bias until something else comes up. 

I can hardly believe what you're saying El-D....you tell me you haven't read this for years....then you say there are inconsistencies but you can't remember specifics?  I zoom in on exactly what I know you're referring because I've  heard this before (by other agnostics), studied it out and you dismiss me?  Are you saying what I just told you makes no sense?  Could it possibly be the inconsistency lies with you not the written scripture?  Could it be that indeed we could be reading something chronologically and then topically? 

There is only one possible interpretation.  We are fallible.  The scriptures are not.  If you and I and Leauki all have diff interpretations, we are not all right.  This should drive us to look closer and outside of our ownselves to get at the truth.  The scripture always interprets scripture.   The truth sometimes can take a while to get at especially when it's surrounded by so many lies. 

again this is where you and I get into semantic disagreements.  You don't look at the whole picture.  You don't see the woods only the one tree in your sights. 

Think about this.....if the flood was local then God lied to Noah when he promised never to send a destructive flood again (9:11).  But we know there have been many local destructive floods ever since.

Flood traditions can be found in the history of every ancient civilization culture.  The early aborigines of nearly every country of the world have preserved records of the universal flood.  A Scientist I read about once collected 46 flood legends from North and South America, 20 from Asia, 5 from Europe, 7 from Africa and 10 from South Sea islands and Austrailia. 

Marine fossils have been found atop mountains.  Scientists of the 19th century were dismayed to find that as high as they climbed the rocks yielded skeltons of marine animals, ocean fish, and shells of mollusks.  A whale's skelton was once found on the top of Mt. Sanhorn on the Artic Coast and other similar skeltons a mile high on California's coastal range. 

So I have no choice to believe this was world wide Leauki.  Believe what you want but to me the evidence is overwhelming and the way the scriptures read it's quite clear this was no ordinary flood. 

KFC, how do you explain the existance of animals not native to mesapotamia?

That is... how did noa get a pair of australian or texan or other animals native to continent across the ocean?

1: they evolved after the flood (but no, evolution IS EVUL!!!)

2: He magically teleported them (magic is evil)

3: They walked over like the bible says they did (no wait, they can't, there is an ocean in the middle)

4: the story is wrong.

Taltimer posts:

This is nonsense.

The Douay Rheims Version is the most accurate and reliable translation of St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405AD), which in turn is a word-for-word translation from the original languages. St.Jerome was a consummate linguistic genious...Greek Speaking from birth, knew Latin and Hebrew perfectly, and also had the advantage of having many manuscripts to work from that are no longer extant.

So, sorry about that.....no sale as far as putting forth the idea we can't credibly argue or take passages from Scripture literally using these translations.  All Scripture inspired of God is profitible to teach, to reprove, to correct and to instruct in justice.

or.......

1.  They could evolve after the flood.  Many did.  We have more species now than before.  Christians have no problem with species evolving from their own kind.  It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato. 

2. Scripture says that God himself gathered these animals Gen 7:8-9.  When the tsunami happened in Indonesia what was interesting was there were very few dead animals found because the reports were they were running towards higher ground.  Gave us a bit of insight what could have happened.  It says the fountains of the deep exploded so probably the animals sensed what was about to happen and went to higher ground where Noah was building his Ark.

3.  The indication is strong that prior to the flood the continents of the earth were not separated by vast bodies of water as they are today....but I already said this above. 

4.  The story is not a story at all.  It's history. 

This is true but Lula that's what is being asserted here....a translation from a translation.  The DR is the English from the Latin which is from the Gk. 

But the NASB is directly from the Hebrew and Greek which is more reliable.  The DR is good as far as the translation from the Latin is concerned but not necessarily from the original language and you do lose some meaning when you do it that way.  It would have been better if the DR was directly from the GK and Hebrew.  It's not.  It's from the Latin.  Now the Latin was ok and Jerome was certainly very linguistic but then to go from that to the English isn't totally going to be translated with 100% accuracy. 

....I think that's why you and I had some conversations about diff words back along......remember body?  and vulture? 

As a bi-lingual person I must tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a perfect "word by word" translation, because most words do not perfectly MATCH another word, most have double meanings as well as implications that are lost in translation. And quite often the translator completely butchers the translation and adds things or deletes things etc...

As a person who read the bible in hebrew and english I can tell you it is very different.

LEAUKI POSTS:

KFC. you have Leauki pegged. Reading Hebrew is one thing but applying it in context with other passages is something else. And this must be done in order to arrive at the meaning.  

As far as I can tell, Genesis 6, in all languages, in all translations and versions, speaks of a one time, extraordinary, universal flood and some of those passages (as translated from the original Hebrew by St.Jerome) have been pointed out in posts #299 and 301.

Leauki  posts:

No. Leauki...the idea of a world-wide flood comes from reading Genesis 6 and you don't have to read far to learn that God was offended by sin and not just the sin of people of the local Mesopotamia area, but sin all over the world. V.6 God regretted that He had made man, and not just the people of the local Mesopotamia area.

God did say so..that's what we've been telling you....God caused the Great Flood...He was there and He is the One who inspired the writer to write Genesis 6. Genesis 6 is God's revelation of what took place and why. 

KFC POSTS:

 This is another good point...more evidence of a universal flood. 

Geology also confirms a Great Flood of Noe and helps answer questions such as how the animals travelled to the Ark.

Genesis 7:11-12 describes great geological upheavals all over the world so it's destructive magnitude was very great. It says, "on that same day, were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (the canopy was broken). And the rain was upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights." Lots and lots of torrential water that continued 150 days bringing total destruction when it was all done.

Geologists note 3 mechanisms that God used to destroy the earth by Flood. "All the fountains of the great deep" were underwater volcanoes spewing out into the ocean basins. The subterranean chambers of water caused techonism of a broad scale. After being emptied some collapsed into sedimentary basins which later lifted to form mountain chains. When a volcanoe erupts underwater, it causes a tsunami which pushes water towards the continents and this water from every direction dumped sediments and marine fossils to the land in places where marine fossils under ordinary conditions would never be found.

Finally, 6 months after the start of the Flood, 8:3, "the waters returned from off the earth." They decreased continually for the next several months until the tops of the mountains were seen. v. 5.

The topographical world before the Flood was completely different afterward. It is thought that the continents of Africa and Asia and South America were together before the Flood and during the time of the breaking of the fountains of the deep, the Mid Altlantic ridge developed and forced the land to break apart as it is today.

Through modern technology, we are now able to see the ocean floor....and only the Great Flood of Noe explains existance of the Mid Atlantic Ridge, and the mountains and canyons as we see them today.

Check out this short video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIBWMig3dCw 

Lula posts:

KFC,

Gosh, I wish you would have stopped with "This is true"....

Addressing the highlighted.....

I really don't want to belabor this but would like to make a couple of points about the Douay Rheims translation. As you know, the OT books were originally written in Hebrew. And St.Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew to Latin. Therefore, there wasn't any Greek involved.

All of the 27 Books of the NT were written in Greek except St.Matthew's Gospel written in Aramaic. Those, St.Jerome translated directly from Greek to Latin, so you are correct that the DR is an English translation from the Latin from the Greek . What is of paramount importance concerning the translation of the original Hebrew in the OT and Greek in the NT is that he had far more texts that simply no longer exist today. Further, he was 1600 years closer to the original languages than modern scholars. Who's going to be a better translater of exact Hebrew and Greek words and meanings employed in Scripture?  Is St. Jerome or modern scholars who have to learn their ancient Greek and Hebrew from grammars,lexicons, dictionaries and from professors who presumably do not speak the language natively and who themselves had to learn it and so forth back through time? I'm betting on St.Jerome who I believe God guided every step of the way.  And what's more, his Latin translation from the originals has gone from then through today uncorrupted.

The Council of Trent officially (ex cathedra) declared St. Jerome's translation to be the literally authentic version of canonical Scriptures. That means it is free from any error in matters of faith and morals and that the Chruch testifies and affirms it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in errors and in preaching. The reason the DR is so important is becasue it's the only English Bible that is a faithful word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. The absolute fidelty to the Vulgate has always been its claim. So it really comes down to this...If God does not guide the translation of the Holy Bible, then it's meaning can be easily lost which I believe is the case with every other English translation other than the Douay Rheims. I believe that Almighty God was there guiding St.Jerome and the translators of the DR Bible.  

Turns out the Latin Vulgate is more than OK...it is the only version around today that has virtually been left alone uncorrupted...in short it hasn't gone through translation after translation and neither has the Douay Rheims.

 There is no way the Protestant NASB is taken directly from the Hebrew and Greek.

1----They don't have any of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and so they are translating transcriptions of other texts.

2---The NASB employs translations of certain words, which though correct in some sense of the words, are often incorrect for the particular use in which they occur in the Holy Bible. (i'll get back to this one with an example.)

3---Becasue the original languages of the Holy Bible is difficult to understand, they changed the words to make it easier to read and understand. Unfortunately, they are not always accurate if God's meaning is translated out.

One website explained the 1995 NASB translation was taken from a 1901 ASV translation becasue they "sought to render grammer and terminology in contemporary English." The verb tenses were "as close as possible" to the original Greek and Hebrew. The NASB 1995 translation was because they wanted to make it updated to modern English and "words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years have been updated to current English and "verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been retranslated into smoother English."

Sorry, KFC, the NASB translation is neither directly from the Greek and Hebrew, nor is it more reliable than the DR.  For one, if the goal is to render it to contemporary English then it can't be a faithful and accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. It can't be both ways...so your claim doesn't hold water.  

Now back to this:

2---The NASB employs translations of certain words, which though correct in some sense of the words, are often incorrect for the particular use in which they occur in the Holy Bible. (i'll get back to this one with an example.)

Concerning which meaning of the original words of Scripture to use in making accurate English translation, let's consider the word "grace", in Greek, Charis. By the time St.Paul wrote the Greek word charis already had its specific Christian theological meaning. St.Jerome corresponded to St.Paul's meaning by translating charis into Latin as gratia, which in English becomes "grace". 

Here's the Douay Rheims translation of St.Luke 1: 27-28..."To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.  

Here's the NASB translation of St.Luke 1:27-28...." ²⁷to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ²⁸And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." 

Hmmmm....It doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish the difference between being "full of grace" and "favored". True, favor or favored is one meaning of charis, but not the one intended by St.Luke. A woman may be highly favored with any number of talents, abilitites or with good looks or having lots of money, etc. But that doesn't mean that she is "full of grace". The Blessed Virgin was "full of grace" in the sense of being absolutely full of God's divine life (sanctifying grace), so if she is full of grace, there is no sin on her soul whatsoever. What a difference in meaning.

That's probably true and fits my explanation that such boats were common in Mesopotamia. Trading city states at two big rivers obviously had advanced boat-building technology. I wouldn't be surprised if they were superior to current technology in many aspects.

And there we go again with your strawmen technique. Darwinism doesn't claim that fish turn into birds (or watermelons into tomatoes).

In fact I have explained before how one species can evolve into two without ever becoming another species. But I guess the "Christian principle of honesty" doesn't help you in ignoring this whenever you want to repeat your build-in "argument".

Having someone "pegged" for you means that you disagree with them. So that is not really an argument. I already knew that you had me "pegged" and that you will always disagree with a literal reading of the text.

The Latin translation you pointed me to translates "eretz" as "terra", which means "land" (not "earth").

We have here a literal reading of the text which agrees with what we know about physics and history from other sources and a Christian version which does not.

Guess which version I believe?

This is the sentence in question (one of them):

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C007.htm#V6

The Hebrew is "3al-haAretz". "3al" means "on" even though some English versions translate it as "all over". "3al" implies that something was under the water (it could also imply that the water was parallel to a wall). The land is here seen as below the water (not surrounded by it like a planet filled with water would be). "HaAretz" means "the land". There is a newspaper of the same name.

But let's refer to the Latin translation you keep bringing up as "evidence" for your point of view. I'm not sure if you speak Latin and know what it actually says, but I do.

The Latin translation for "3al-haAretz" here is "super terram" ("terram" is the accusative case of "terra").

"Terra" means "earth , land, ground, soil; a country, land, region" (not "planet Earth"):

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=terr&ending=a

And "super" with accusative is a preposition and means "over, above, upon", also implying a over-under relationship with whatever "haAretz" is:

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=super&ending=

You think you are impressing people by knowing the names of many translations? I assume this usually works. You tell me people that translation X also says what original text Y said, and it never matters that you understand neither the original text nor the translation. Unfortunately I can read both the original text and the Latin translation...

However, the Latin text is interesting. While the English and German translations use a word that NOW means "planet Earth" (and 500 years ago meant "land"), the Latin translation actually uses a word that means "land" and "region" and "earth" in a sense which clearly isn't and never was the entire planet.

It makes a lot of sense that people living in an age where the shape of the world wasn't known and where nobody knew how much of it there actually is, didn't think that a text mentioning "land" referred to more land than they could imagine. And it didn't.

The flood story refers to northern Mesopotamia. That's what the text says and that's what very possibly happened (unless the story is simply wrong). Anything else is interpretation and, to a large degree, nonsense.

I am not aware of another destructive flood in northern Mesopotamia. Can you cite a source?

good question Leauki....but you have a slight problem here....what about the rainbow?  Is the rainbow only seen in Mesopotamia? 

When you can answer that in the affirmative I'll answer your question. 

You may want to research what the rainbow stood for. 

And I guess this is an example where you have to accept the story on your faith, I do not accept your story but I could potentially accept Leauki's version of it because it is much more plausible.  To add to the impossibility your version of the story, how would Noah have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas?

This is impossible.  It took a long time (thousands of years) for water to carve out the grand canyon but your saying that our continents were greated by one flood?  We know that the continents are the way they are because of tectonic plate shifting, not because of a flood.

There have also been many reports of seeing what appeared to be a face on Mars but upon further investigation it turned out to just be light and shadow playing tricks.  Until someone actually finds a boat up there I ain't buying it.

No I'd rather accept something that makes logical sense vs. something that is physically impossible.  And again you are assuming that God exists and that the bible is his word before you even open the book, I don't have that assumption.

No a global flood makes no sense, at least to me.  If it makes sense to you that's fine you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.  The tsunamis prove that floods like that can do massive destruction sure, but not that a global flood is possible.

I don't need to have all the numbers.  The key here is that your version of the ark story says that the ark had to hold two of every species.  We still don't know how many species exist on earth how could Noah have loaded two of each onto the boat?  I mean we're talking about two of each species of bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian(since they can't live in a 100% water environment), insect, etc.  There is just no way that all of them could have fit on any boat no matter what size it was, especially boats made out of wood.  The reason we have such large vessels today is because of the metal that they are made of and the modern technology used to allow them to displace enough water to carry the loads they are designed to carry.  And by the way, how big is a cubit?

Hibernation is a good theory, but not all species hibernate.  In fact some species like humans can't hibernate.  I suppose the reptiles could go into some sort of a dormant state if they were cold enough but I'm not sure if that is really survivable for them.  Birds can't hibernate as far as I'm aware if you have evidence to suggest that they could please enlighten me.

What facts to I need to make my assetions?  I know that there are a lot of species of animals out there.  I find impossible to think that two of each could be loaded onto a boat let alone the food and water needed to care for them.  And again the burden is on you to prove that it is possible not on me to disprove it.

Ok let's assume that your numbers are correct.  How does a family of 5 (if I recall it was Noah, his wife and three kids) care for 35,000 animals?  It takes a large staff to care for the animals in a zoo and that is no where near 35,000 animals.  We're talking about not just feeding the animals and making sure they have water but also cleaning their living quarters of fecal matter, etc.  So even if the boat was large enough to hold all the animals (which I still think is suspect) I don't see how 5 people could have cared for that many animals.

Have you been the smithsonian?  We know from dating the bones when the dinosaurs died out.  We know from dating human bones when they died and from that we know that the oldest human remains found are no where near when the dinosaurs died out.  So now your saying that science is just plain wrong in all of this.  I can understand if you want to say that we have an incomplete fossil record but that doesn't mean that science is completely wrong.

You don't think that its possible I did my own research and happened to come to the same conclusions as others?  Well the same can be said about you.  You are making the same arguments that I've heard over and over again does that mean that you are simply believing what others have told you?  No you did research and just happen to agree with them.  It's not the same thing.

And I know the same thing about myself no matter what you may assume about me.

If this is what you believe of science then we may as well stop debating each other.  Science changes as evidence comes in.  And with the exception of the theoretical sciences (like theoretical physics) it is based on observable facts not guesswork and conjecture.  Yes there are some out there who create conclusions first and then find evidence to support it, but those people aren't scientists.  A scientist creates a hypothesis and then seeks to find evidence to either prove or disprove it.  If he/she finds evidence that disproves the hypothesis then the hypothesis is changed until the truth is found based on the evidence collected.

So you admit that your interpretation could be wrong.

Fine.  Don't believe me.  I really don't care.  This entire discussion has devolved to the point where you have concluded that I am getting my info from other sources rather than my own research and there is nothing that I can do to change your opinion since what I say may have already been said by others.  And I could make the exact same conclusion about you but I chose not to.

I'm done trying to debate with you.

I presume so. Most rainbows are only seen at certain places.

I have yet to see one that was visible in many distinct places far from each other.

I don't care what the rainbow stood for. A rainbow is a rainbow is a rainbow. It's like the snake which is a snake (and not the devil). For me a word simply means what the word means. I don't need it to stand for anything else.

Thanks.

I was actually at the place and had a look at the landscape. It looked exactly as I imagined it from my reading of the story.

my son is a Scientist and a strong believer.  He told me recently that people have no idea how much bias is in Science.  We all start with preconceived biases.  All of us regardless if we are Scientists or not.   The  non- Christian Scientists  are looking to prove things without God because their bias at the foundation is there is no God.  The Scientists who are believers look at the evidence with their pre-conceived bias that there is a God. 

How close are you to the OH/KY boarder?  You may want to check out the Creation Museum that just opened up about a year or two ago.  They have a huge area dedicated just to the ark...how it was built, how the whole thing worked, what the various rooms were for etc.  If I remember right the floors had like open grates where the fecal matter went into to keep it clean...but again think about the hibernation theory. 

Also El-D don't forget you don't know the scriptures so you're going on hearsay.....there were 8 people on board.  Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives......does that help? 

No, I don't think you did your research.  That's proved by your lack of knowing the scriptures and the other side of the debate.  You couldn't have gone very deep at all into the other side.  What you did was buy hook, line and sinker what only the secular side is telling you.  Any information you got from the Christian side was from the "scientific" side.  Be honest El-D.  Otherwise you would have known much of what I've been telling you and you did not. 

The same can't be said of me because I was you once upon a time.  Somewhere along the way (in my 20's) I changed from being where you are now to where I am now. It's like walking out of a dark room into the light.  The light exposes everything....and then it becomes very clear. 

First off the burden of proof isn't on me.  I'm not trying to prove a thing.  I'm trying to enlighten you and give you something to think about by giving you information that is factual.  It's only God who changes hearts and minds.  I can lead you so far, he does the rest.  Now having said that...I don't think water was a problem do you?  As far as food goes, if many were in hibernation that cuts down alot of food.  Then there are others who provide milk and maybe zoo could tell us more when it comes to how various animals eat and digest food.  I'm not that knowledgeable about animal behavior thruout the animal kingdom.  Besides all that...think about this.....some came on board in sevens not pairs. 

I didn't say they all did but at least I'm getting something positive out of you....if not for the but, that is.   You asked me how Noah could have taken care of all those animals and I gave you a very good explanation.  From what I understand the flood happened in November which makes sense as far as hibernation goes....besides all that I'm sure these animals had the peace of God to quiet them like never before. 

so you don't need any facts to back your claims up?  Just going by your gut?  How does that work for you anyway?  Are you always right when you go out on a limb like this?  At least I gave you plausible numbers put forth by a taxonomist.  What are you going on?  It's ok to push me to prove where I'm going, but you once again, are giving me nothing but your opinion and where you want this to go.  Do you know why? 

why not?  What are you going on?   How do you account for all the evidences I've already given? 

No, I'm not assuming El-D.  I know that God exists....he's made himself known to me as well as countless others.  We are all witnesses to him being alive and well.  I can't help it that you don't believe the many witnesses including the fact that his fingerprints are all over this earth.  So who put all this here anyway?  Who put you here?  Where did you come from?  Nothing? And that's logical?  Ok. 

ha!  They will but I don't think if they found Noah's body there you'd believe it....even Christ said they won't even believe if a man rises from the dead. 

I'm telling you El-D there's a reason why you don't believe. 

think about it.....drip drip drip over thousands of years or one large flood with rushing pushing heavy water?  Which would make changes faster?  We've already got proof in Mt. St. Heleons how one catastrophe can make a huge change in the landscape.  So impossible?  Are you sure? 

I already answered this.  Are you really reading what I'm posting? 

It can be.  I've been wrong before.  Am I wrong about Noah and the Ark?  No.  I may be wrong about some of the details because some is conjecture and opinion and I try to make sure I point that out.....like the hibernation.  We don't know for sure but it does help and make sense and is quite a natural thing to happen. 

The thing is not to hang onto a wrong thought because of our pride.  I'm a truth seeker.  If I'm wrong, I'm ok with that because it just drives me to find the truth even more.  I don't really care about my pride or my opinion.  I want at the truth and the more I find it the more it challenges me and makes me thirsty to find more. 

Com'on El-D...don't be that way.  If you were me what would you think?  You just came out and said there were five people (not eight) on that ark. That's just a simple thing not to know.   Obviously you haven't done your research totally.  You're only being half truthful here.  I think you've done the research that tells you what you really want to hear.   You didn't know how big the ark was, nor how many animals are thought to be included, nor how long it took to build this boat....yet you are very dogmatic that not only have  done your research but that you have concluded beyond question that you have the truth about all this.   How can that be when you haven't even  got a grasp of the historical account of Noah from the Christian perspective? 

You have to look at both sides equally and honestly before you can really know the truth.  Otherwise you could very well be buying the lie that supresses the truth.   It's called indoctrination, not education. 

Happens all the  time.