Vibr8gKiwi

Somebody call the men in white coats. There's something fundamentally broke with someone that starts a thread on a subject and then complains that people won't leave the subject alone.

AbbyNormal

I have read this thread with some interest and I have just one thing to say in response to the above drivel:

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Thank you.

ExChild

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawkingfan:
[QB]

Another inconsistency involves the actual number of animals taken into the ark. In GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9; and 7:14-16 it says that two of each kind are to be taken, and were taken, aboard the Ark.
But in GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and were taken) aboard the Ark.
--------------------------------------------
And that's not the only inconsistency either. After reading the ark story carefully I have wondered if there are actually two stories combined into one--just like the creation accounts are thought to have been pieced together. Reading from Gen 6:13-22, god tells Noah to build the ark, take in his family, along with two of every animal, and food for them all. Then starting in 7:1-7:6, god tells Noah to go into the ark with his family, and take seven of the clean animals and two of the unclean. Starting again in 7:8 it states that of clean AND unclean animals two of each went in, contradicting vs. 7:1-6. Gen 7:7 also says that Noah and his family go into the ark; This is repeated in vs 13, which is where all the talk about "kinds" of animals is presented. Really it's pretty easy to spot the two versions--they're in big chunks of scripture and usually they repeat each other.

Doesn't this seem to indicate that someone compiled this myth from other existing myths? Perhaps one was more detailed than the other and so they needed pieces of both to make it a complete story.

Also, much has been made of the genetic problems that would arise from the interbreeding of Noah's family. I'm not an expert in genetics, so help me out: wouldn't these defects and retardations just be a possibility, depending on the way the genetic dice roll? Like if something is a recessive trait (which it would have to be or Noah et al. would already have it) then two of the clan interbreeding would have a 25% chance of passing on the disease. THis is why there was a HIGHER incidence of hemophilia in royal families who were trying to keep the bloodlines pure, but not all of them had it. This would mean it would not be impossible for Noah's family to reproduce, just highly unlikely. I could be completely wrong here, so correct as needed.

Question for Frivolous:
Noah's story is what first caused me to doubt the validity of the entire Old Testament, and consequently the New Testament, so I'm always interested in these threads. For you personally, what evidence would it take for you to not believe?

Thanks.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: ExChild ]</p>

CALDONIA

On the Ark, who was in charge of keeping the anteaters from the ants? The mongoose (mongeese?) from the cobra? The polar bear from the seal? Were the condors allowed carrion luggage or were they fed the remains of "gate-crashers" who got onto the Ark without proper credentials?

Kosh

Yeah, good thing he's just a Troll doing some Ignorant Fundie roll playing...

Sojourner553

Frivolous,

You are right in one thing: you ARE being bombarded.

I notice no other Christians are jumping to your defense... I suspect because they know better than to take up an obvious superstition.

Actually, I usually do not like to debate the ark issue because it is easy to use MAGIC as an explanation. For example, God magically flew two/six of each kind of animals to the ark and then back where they came from under a magical force field. They ate manna, which caused NO excrement. He lightened their weight so they would not sink the boat. He innoculated all the humans and animals from all the nasty germs around. He made the animals love one another so there were no vicious fights like one would see in the animals natural habitat (like the jungle).

In essence, this was really like a Disney movie, with just as much magic.

All other physical problems were solved magically: Water was transported/beamed down (like in Star Trek) from other planets or even OTHER dimensions so there would be enough volume to flood the entire earth. The laws of physics was changed so that rainbows did not exist until after the flood.


Noah and his descendants just "forgot" to mention the dinosaurs that existed before the Flood. No problem as humans also forgot to mention all the miraculous details of how God allowed the creatures to live peaceably side by side (ie the lions did not try to eat Noah, etc).

All the EARLIER stories of floods in primitive myths and the lack of records of a flood in civilizations who lived in arid regions were due either to forgetfulness or their sin from not being Christians.

So -- here it is: It's all so EASILY explained.

Actually, although you see the Flood is easily reconciled. These other stories in the Bible are not:


· The earth was created before the sun, moon, and other planets and stars.
· The earth is flat
· The earth is stationary in space and the sun and the rest of the planets revolve around it.
·All diseases were attributed to DEMONIC origin, as opposed to natural causes.

Why? Because if these events happened as described in the Bible, it would have been an even BIGGER MIRACLE for God to have WIPED OUT ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THESE OCCURENCES THAN THE EVENT ITSELF (ie of the earth being flat during biblical times, located in the center of the universe, and that the sun was stopped to allow Joshua an extra day of fighting. Not to mention why demons seemed to disappear after doctors started looking for natural causes -- like germs.

Sojourner

PS: Personally, I like Disney's stories of magic a lot better than those in the bible. But then I do like fairy tales -- I just don't like to mix them up with reality...

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Answerer

Frivolous, you are absolutely lame.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Maverick

Ok everyone! Let's not resort to name calling. Try to keep it civil, or I will have to close the thread.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

Sojourner553

Please show Frivolous some common courtesy please. I have not seen him be rude and he IS entitled to his opinion.

I think he hasn't been exposed to much of this.
You can hit on his ideas -- but I will stand up for him if you try and trash him personally for his honest beliefs.

As Voltaire once was summarized:

"I may disagree with every word you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."

Sojourner

P.S. I composed this before I saw Maverick's response above. ' glad I was not the only one with the same reaction.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Biff the unclean

I think that's
"but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
Though it does sound more French if you leave the "for" out