Is the great biblical flood real or not?

[Zmouth]

I began researching the subject of the Genesis Flood in 1971, and I have read hundreds of books, articles, papers, arguments, etc., and have watched countless documentaries and other videos.

[FONT=&quot]Why shouldn't they believe the global flood of Noah is what is written in the Bible since you do? While you don't believe that it is true you believe that what you interpret it is representing.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And yet you didn't know that the flood of Noah was referring unto a flood of violence which pours down upon the corrupt men who maketh and loveth lies. [/FONT]
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Gen 6:12


Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers; and he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof. Jer 46:8
[FONT=&quot]
If the LORD has said that the days of man's life in the flesh is 120 years, then how could Noah be 600 years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth[/FONT][FONT=&quot]?

[FONT=&quot]If you don't believe the LORD said that when he brought a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud as a token of his covent with man that the waters shall no become a flood to destroy all flesh. But I guess you believe that it was a rainbow that the LORD set in the cloud. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:14-15



[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]So if you don't believe that the LORD said days of man in the flesh shall be a 120 years then why should you believe that the cloud that was brought over the earth like a garment was the atmosphere in Genesis 1:6, so when you look down upon the earth does one first see earth under the atmosphere or the atmosphere which is risen above the hight point of dry land?

[/FONT][/FONT]And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:16

 

[Snoozy]

I began researching the subject of the Genesis Flood in 1971, and I have read hundreds of books, articles, papers, arguments, etc., and have watched countless documentaries and other videos. .

thats a lotta reading there. i did the same myself, i began researching the subject of the genesis flood and this was my method:
i read the book of Genesis. its all clear to me now.

 

[Bladerunner]

I began researching the subject of the Genesis Flood in 1971, and I have read hundreds of books, articles, papers, arguments, etc., and have watched countless documentaries and other videos. I have also corresponded at length with so-called young earth scientists who flaunt their Ph.D’s, even though their graduate studies and their doctoral dissertations were in fields that in no way qualified them to have an educated opinion on young earth creationism, the Genesis Flood, or the theory of evolution. Furthermore, none of them had earned so much a B.A. in any field of study relevant to Old or New Testament exegesis. Moreover, these shortcomings are typical of all of the young-earth creationists during the past 65 years!

About 15 years ago, I began researching young earth creationist organizations, and I could scarcely believe the extent of their willful and deliberate misrepresentation of the qualifications of so-called creation scientists. Furthermore, I could scarcely believe the extent of their willful and deliberate misrepresentation of the number of genetically discrete populations (kinds) of land animals that would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have them with us today. My further research manifested the amount of disagreement there is among the organizations regarding which animals were aboard the ark. Answers in Genesis teaches that there were aboard the ark representatives of each family of animals, rather than each genus or species, and that, through the process of microevolution, we now have a multitude of different “kinds.” A good example is the family Felidae, the cat family, which includes three genera (Felis, Panthera, and Acinonyx) and many species. Such evolution would be full-scale macroevolution, which Answers in Genesis teaches contradicts the Bible! Moreover, anyone with even a basic knowledge of genetics knows that such evolution would take millions of years! The people at Answers in Genesis are very much aware of these facts—but they do not care as long as their misrepresentations steer people away from evolution! Unfortunately, what is true of Answers in Genesis is true of other young earth creationist organizations—they know that they are teaching garbage, but they teach it anyway!

Kent Hovind is unique in the young earth creationist movement because he continues to use discredited arguments that have been abandoned by other organizations in the movement—and he knows full well that his arguments have been discredited because he has been told so by other organizations in the movement! Indeed, apart from the Watch Tower Society (the Jehovah’s Witnesses), I do not know of any religious organizations that are more dishonest and unethical than those in the young earth creationist movement. And like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, their followers unquestioningly believe what they are told regardless of absolute, incontrovertible proof that they are being deceived.

In post #96 of this thread, I posted undeniable facts that absolutely prove that the Genesis Flood could not possibly have occurred as described in Gen. 6-8, but the facts are being ignored because young earth creationists believe what they want to believe instead of the truth.

Genesis 1-11 is a fascinating portion of the Bible that in its own personal and unique way expresses the absolute grandeur and holiness of God and the frailty and sinfulness of man and prefigures the two covenants of Law and Grace and the consequences of living under each of the two covenants. That it is made up of epic tales is made manifest through its description of that which is absolutely impossible taking place through exclusively human means (the Ark that Noah and his family built and the preservation of the animals aboard that Ark). That it is a divinely inspired work is made manifest through its prefiguring of the two covenants in a much more clear manner than we find anywhere else in the Old Testament (the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

I have seen your kind before in the atheist chat rooms. Now, you may not be an atheist but you carry and spew forth all the arguments they normally do. While I am not going to argue with you, I will tell you this about the millions of years needed to make a difference.

I have lived on this mountain for some 35 years and have seen the small, scared coyotes develop into full grown Dogs that can and do take down full grown sheep, goats and even calves. This has all happened in the last 35 years where the coyotes have breed with wild dogs that were once man's best friend but turned out to fend for themselves. Yes, they have MANY of the same characteristics and are now called coydogs and are not the small, scared coyotes of old. Yet, they are still of the same KIND God placed them in.

As a matter of fact, it takes even less than 35 years for breeders to develop through crossbreeding, new breed(s) of specialized dogs, dogs without hair, dogs without tails, dogs of gigantic weight,etc.,etc.,etc......

In my earlier years I was a Microbiologist and can tell you a little about mircro-evolution. We can see it to day in the resistance to the antibiotics. But as far as say the Staphyloccocus organism mating with a E-Coli organism, the answer is NO, it just does not happen. They are two different Kinds. It is seen a little easier in Dogs and Hyenas. Hyenas have a lot of the dogs characteristics yet they are two different KINDS.

As far as the Flood goes, it is hard to dispute full grown trees standing upright through several layers of sediment that evolutionist like to use to date the earth and thereby the animals fossils found within them. I guess we can apportion the sections of the trees found in the different sediment to be a plethora of years of age since evolutionist use circular reasoning in their effort to thwart God's plan.

Circular Reasoning:
If this dinosaur lived 65 million years ago, then the layers (all named) of sediment the dinosaur is found in, is determined to be 65 million years old by association.

AND

if you find a dinosaur bone in a layer of sediment that has been determined to be 65 million years old, well the dinosaur bone must be the same age as the sediment is; in this case 65 million years old.

 

[Dino246]

like I said I do believe Noah was a real person I do believe that there was a flood but I think how the scriptures say it was up to the clouds is an allegory for it being a very large flood much less I don't think I can't discuss my views with others I'm not that arrogant but I do think that young earth creationism and complete biblical literalism are not credible or rational views

Please go and look up the word, "allegory". It appears that you think it is something other than what it actually is.

As for the flood being "not literal", I'd encourage you to read Genesis 6 to 9 and look specifically for clues that would indicate whether or not it is literal.

 

[Enow]

Here is the evidence that shows it is indeed real

I have the images to show you but I cannot upload them & I don't know why?

Jesus validated Noah's flood as a reference to a warning for what is to come. It cannot be a story, for then that would take away the just cause to be warned for what is coming.

Matthew 24:[SUP]37 [/SUP]But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.[SUP] 38 [/SUP]For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,[SUP]39 [/SUP]And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.[SUP] 27 [/SUP]They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.[SUP]28 [/SUP]Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;[SUP] 29 [/SUP]But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.[SUP]30 [/SUP]Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

So was Jesus just scaring them with stories that have no basis in reality? Or are they true to take His warning to heart.

Peter did the same thing in warning others of what is to come because God will judge the world again but in a different way.

2 Peter 3:[SUP]3 [/SUP]Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,[SUP] 4 [/SUP]And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.[SUP] 5 [/SUP]For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:[SUP]7 [/SUP]But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

There are evidence of global flood like a mass grave of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life WITH fossilized land animal life TOGETHER on the Andes mountaintops, but it did not take long for evolutionists to lie that evidence away.

You can find evidence of water line marks on mountain tops all over the world, but you really have to look for that.

I take Jesus's words over two face lying man in a false science any day.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com

 

[Sagart]

evolutionist use circular reasoning in their effort to thwart God's plan.

In the years before God called me into the pastoral ministry, I was an evolutionary biologist—and so were all of my friends. During those years, I never encountered, in person or in print, so much as one evolutionary biologist who had any interest whatsoever in thwarting a plan of God. Some of the evolutionary biologists were Christians, some were of other faiths, many were agnostics, and a few were atheists—but not of them opposed God or the Bible.

Furthermore, in all of my studies of young earth creationism, I have never encountered a young earth creationist who had ever so much a read an introductory textbook on evolution. They have all been ridiculously ignorant of the theory, and they have all had a destructive influence in the Church because they made Christianity to appear to be a religion of stupidity and ignorance—thereby hindering many from believing God’s message of salvation in the Bible.

Indeed, in my ministry to a fellowship of atheists, I have over the years gotten to know many of them very well. Nearly all of them had previously been fundamentalist Christians, and several had been youth pastors, worship leaders, or otherwise very active in their church. None of them had ever been exposed to an academically defensible interpretation of Genesis 1-11, so when they became exposed to scientific proof that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and exposed to the fact that there are today over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned one or more doctorates and who believe that the theory of evolution is a very solid theory with a tremendous amount of supporting evidence, they realized that much of what they had been taught in church was not true. Consequently, they found themselves in a crisis of faith and decided to believe the solid science rather than Christianity as they had been taught it. Moreover, other pastors and Christian workers working with atheists have found the same to be true. Young earth creationism is a lie from hell, and it is directly responsible for thousands of young people—every year—abandoning their faith Christ!

Young people who are brought up in churches where the Bible is responsibly taught are given a solid foundation for their faith in Christ, and they are far less likely to depart from it.

 

[trofimus]

In the years before God called me into the pastoral ministry, I was an evolutionary biologist—and so were all of my friends. During those years, I never encountered, in person or in print, so much as one evolutionary biologist who had any interest whatsoever in thwarting a plan of God. Some of the evolutionary biologists were Christians, some were of other faiths, many were agnostics, and a few were atheists—but not of them opposed God or the Bible.

Furthermore, in all of my studies of young earth creationism, I have never encountered a young earth creationist who had ever so much a read an introductory textbook on evolution. They have all been ridiculously ignorant of the theory, and they have all had a destructive influence in the Church because they made Christianity to appear to be a religion of stupidity and ignorance—thereby hindering many from believing God’s message of salvation in the Bible.

Indeed, in my ministry to a fellowship of atheists, I have over the years gotten to know many of them very well. Nearly all of them had previously been fundamentalist Christians, and several had been youth pastors, worship leaders, or otherwise very active in their church. None of them had ever been exposed to an academically defensible interpretation of Genesis 1-11, so when they became exposed to scientific proof that the earth is at the very least hundreds of millions of years old, and exposed to the fact that there are today over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned one or more doctorates and who believe that the theory of evolution is a very solid theory with a tremendous amount of supporting evidence, they realized that much of what they had been taught in church was not true. Consequently, they found themselves in a crisis of faith and decided to believe the solid science rather than Christianity as they had been taught it. Moreover, other pastors and Christian workers working with atheists have found the same to be true. Young earth creationism is a lie from hell, and it is directly responsible for thousands of young people—every year—abandoning their faith Christ!

Young people who are brought up in churches where the Bible is responsibly taught are given a solid foundation for their faith in Christ, and they are far less likely to depart from it.

I agree that many fundamentalist churches try to oppose science, quite without any meaning, just because their theology does not seem to fit with it.

And so create a useless conflict and problems for younger generation.

On the other hand, most Christians worldwide accept theistic evolution, they are just not so loud as "dr Dino" and similar.

 

[Snoozy]

there is no problem trofimus. the only problem is u care what some nerd professor thinks with his fancy science degrees instead of believing what the bible says.

u dont need to make science falsely so called and bible fit together.

 

[Sagart]

there is no problem trofimus. the only problem is u care what some nerd professor thinks with his fancy science degrees instead of believing what the bible says.

u dont need to make science falsely so called and bible fit together.

Perhaps you missed this post,

It is not a matter of believing or disbelieving the Bible; it is a matter of believing or disbelieving the old Roman Catholic tradition that says that Gen. 1-11 is to be understood as an accurate account of historic events. The Roman Catholic Church has since abandoned that tradition as being untenable. When we consider how very deeply entrenched the Roman Catholic Church is in tradition, we see that it must have had some very solid reasons for abandoning that tradition. Some of those reasons likely included the following facts:

• There are today about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth. If we assume a date of about 2,349 B.C. (Bishop Ussher’s date), microevolution reduces the number of “kinds” of animals that must have been aboard the ark (to account for the about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth today) to a few hundred thousand “kinds.”
• The few hundred thousand of “kinds” of animals, including the dinosaurs, mammoths, giant ground sloths, etc., which have become extinct must also be considered. Did they all become extinct before the flood? If not, they were, according to the account in Genesis, aboard the ark.
• The ark, as literally described in Genesis, was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less than the animals, cages, and food on board, thus making it impossible for the ark to float.
• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).
• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh at least nearly as much as the animals, and would require a vast amount of storage space.
• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc., including fresh fruits that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore, these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark, and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.
• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.
• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.
• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept aboard the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.
• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because many of them would eat each other.
• The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few special difficulties.
• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.
• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.
• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.
• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood?
• If the reported sightings of the Ark are factual, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the large majority of the animals would not have been able to descend.

The narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.


Most people today disbelieve in the flood because it presents to the reader an absolutely impossible scenario; and anyone with a seventh grade or better education can see that for themselves—unless they choose to not see it!


Do you believe that a pair of kangaroos boarded Australian Airlines Flight 777 in 2349 B.C., and that the plane landed in Noah’s driveway? (Kangaroos can swim, but Australia was a l — o – n — g way from Noah’s backyard).

And how about koalas, wombats, Tasmanian devils, and frilled neck lizards? How did they get from Australia to the ark?

Why didn’t the pair of Allosaurus fragilis dinosaurs eat Adam and his family when they arrived at his house? Had the pair of Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaurs already eaten the family? Whoops! No, that could not have been the case. If these and the very many other kinds of carnivorous dinosaurs did not eat Adam and his family, what did they eat for 150 days while they were on board the ark; and what did they eat after they got off the ark?

 

[Bladerunner]

I agree that many fundamentalist churches try to oppose science, quite without any meaning, just because their theology does not seem to fit with it.

And so create a useless conflict and problems for younger generation.

On the other hand, most Christians worldwide accept theistic evolution, they are just not so loud as "dr Dino" and similar.

Is that what you call that, Theistic evolution.....replacing the dull Atheist word.

Like I said, not going to argue, because I have been there before and it is a losing cause. Now I know where you stand.

 

[RexCA]

I know what the word allegory means the thing is things aren't always so black and white in how words can be used or how things can be interpreted an attempt to base everything on such a manner results in logical fallacies, linguistic errors, inconsistency, and translational problems which we often see with fundamentalist churches when they use absolutely 0 historical Christian sources to base their claim that the first 11 chapters of Genesis must be taken literally but will say much of the New Testament parts about the bread of life and the body of Christ and the body of Christ being the church being mere allegories. This sort of translation of the scriptures that fundamentalists use is completely inconsistent with historical Christianity and does not use a consistent methodology of translation as it ignores many obvious feats such as the fact that much of scripture has both a literal and allegorical meaning oftentimes in the same verse. Beyond that such a literalist view of the book of Genesis paints science and philosophy as if they are opposed to God as if both fields do not come from God philosophy being the study of logic and what can be and science being the study of physics and what we see. Young earth creationism should be fully dismissed for a few reasons namely it is inconsistent as stated above and it also dismisses virtually all science that has been formulated in the last 250 years stuff such as the big bang, evolution, the theory of relativity, and various atomic fields of physics are 100% contra to YEC the fact of the matter is that the bible is true and science is true now science and logic are not opposed to God rather they study his creation now many of these theories are fully proven many very close to it so it would be strange if not downright ignorant to keep a literalist view simply because it makes the most sense to oneself. In all honesty I would dare say that to dismiss science as faulty because it contradicts ones own view of the scriptures is on par with dismissing the real nature of what these scriptures where saying and how they are to be interpreted for the sole reason that the one insisting on complete literalism would willfully choosing to remain in falsehood.

 

[trofimus]

there is no problem trofimus. the only problem is u care what some nerd professor thinks with his fancy science degrees instead of believing what the bible says.

u dont need to make science falsely so called and bible fit together.

What professor? I have never studied biology on any University.

I just think about the world I live in and about my body I must daily fight with.

 

[trofimus]

Is that what you call that, Theistic evolution.....replacing the dull Atheist word.

Like I said, not going to argue, because I have been there before and it is a losing cause. Now I know where you stand.

There is no word "atheistic", so "theistic" is not a replacement.

Evolution says that the life evolves. Theistic evolution adds that its God who is guiding it according to His purpose.

---

It seems to me, that this "atheistic evolution vs fundamental Christians" conflict is mostly in the USA, so we can have different feelings about it just because we are from different parts of the world.

 

[wolfwint]

Here is the evidence that shows it is indeed real

I have the images to show you but I cannot upload them & I don't know why?

I need no evidence. I have gods word

 

[Enow]

There is no word "atheistic", so "theistic" is not a replacement.

Evolution says that the life evolves. Theistic evolution adds that its God who is guiding it according to His purpose.

---

It seems to me, that this "atheistic evolution vs fundamental Christians" conflict is mostly in the USA, so we can have different feelings about it just because we are from different parts of the world.

You can find it by how God created them to continue.

Genesis 1:[SUP]24 [/SUP]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.[SUP] 25 [/SUP]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. KJV

Same for the plants on day 3 and the living things in the sea and the fowls of the air on day 5.

Genesis 1:[SUP]11 [/SUP]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[SUP]12 [/SUP]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:[SUP]20 [/SUP]And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.[SUP]21 [/SUP]And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [SUP]22 [/SUP]And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

So it is by HOW God had created the plants and the living things to continue as in multiply after their own kind that reproves the evolution theory for what it is really about and that is macroevolution; becoming something else other than what God has created it to be and to continue as by His word.

 

[wolfwint]

Perhaps you missed this post,

It is not a matter of believing or disbelieving the Bible; it is a matter of believing or disbelieving the old Roman Catholic tradition that says that Gen. 1-11 is to be understood as an accurate account of historic events. The Roman Catholic Church has since abandoned that tradition as being untenable. When we consider how very deeply entrenched the Roman Catholic Church is in tradition, we see that it must have had some very solid reasons for abandoning that tradition. Some of those reasons likely included the following facts:

• There are today about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth. If we assume a date of about 2,349 B.C. (Bishop Ussher’s date), microevolution reduces the number of “kinds” of animals that must have been aboard the ark (to account for the about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth today) to a few hundred thousand “kinds.”
• The few hundred thousand of “kinds” of animals, including the dinosaurs, mammoths, giant ground sloths, etc., which have become extinct must also be considered. Did they all become extinct before the flood? If not, they were, according to the account in Genesis, aboard the ark.
• The ark, as literally described in Genesis, was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less than the animals, cages, and food on board, thus making it impossible for the ark to float.
• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).
• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh at least nearly as much as the animals, and would require a vast amount of storage space.
• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc., including fresh fruits that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore, these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark, and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.
• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.
• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.
• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept aboard the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.
• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because many of them would eat each other.
• The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few special difficulties.
• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.
• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.
• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.
• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood?
• If the reported sightings of the Ark are factual, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the large majority of the animals would not have been able to descend.

The narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.


Most people today disbelieve in the flood because it presents to the reader an absolutely impossible scenario; and anyone with a seventh grade or better education can see that for themselves—unless they choose to not see it!


Do you believe that a pair of kangaroos boarded Australian Airlines Flight 777 in 2349 B.C., and that the plane landed in Noah’s driveway? (Kangaroos can swim, but Australia was a l — o – n — g way from Noah’s backyard).

And how about koalas, wombats, Tasmanian devils, and frilled neck lizards? How did they get from Australia to the ark?

Why didn’t the pair of Allosaurus fragilis dinosaurs eat Adam and his family when they arrived at his house? Had the pair of Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaurs already eaten the family? Whoops! No, that could not have been the case. If these and the very many other kinds of carnivorous dinosaurs did not eat Adam and his family, what did they eat for 150 days while they were on board the ark; and what did they eat after they got off the ark?

Where you there when the flood has taking place? It is not RCC tradition to believe the scripture. It is Gods word himself who said it. Do you think it was possible that God made his plan with the ark came true? I believe it!

 

[trofimus]

You can find it by how God created them to continue.

Genesis 1:[SUP]24 [/SUP]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.[SUP] 25 [/SUP]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. KJV

Same for the plants on day 3 and the living things in the sea and the fowls of the air on day 5.

Genesis 1:[SUP]11 [/SUP]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[SUP]12 [/SUP]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:[SUP]20 [/SUP]And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.[SUP]21 [/SUP]And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [SUP]22 [/SUP]And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

So it is by HOW God had created the plants and the living things to continue as in multiply after their own kind that reproves the evolution theory for what it is really about and that is macroevolution; becoming something else other than what God has created it to be and to continue as by His word.

You seem to like the phrase "after its kind". What does it mean for you?

I do not think that anybody denies there are various kinds of animals.

 

[Snoozy]

i see the devil is working overtime when we cant even agree that the flood happened just like the Bible said it did: GLOBALLY. this is milk truth.
if it was local God coulda just told Noah to move.

 

[trofimus]

i see the devil is working overtime when we cant even agree that the flood happened just like the Bible said it did: GLOBALLY. this is milk truth.
if it was local God coulda just told Noah to move.

Noah (and his ark) needed to be an image of the salvation in Christ. Just moving away would not fit.

And I think that devil has more serious work to do than to attack global flood or young earth. These are not salvation issues.

 

[Enow]

The narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.

Most people today disbelieve in the flood because it presents to the reader an absolutely impossible scenario; and anyone with a seventh grade or better education can see that for themselves—unless they choose to not see it!

Or maybe refuse to see the reality that you can get various species of dogs from those limited amount of dogs that were on the ark.

If there were only eight people on that ark from which all humanity came from; then why does it have to be that each different kind of species of dogs were on that ark?

Ever seen a black couple give birth to an albino? So within the set DNA, varieties can happen in animals as well as humans, but humans will always produce humans after their kind as animals will..

Do you believe that a pair of kangaroos boarded Australian Airlines Flight 777 in 2349 B.C., and that the plane landed in Noah’s driveway? (Kangaroos can swim, but Australia was a l — o – n — g way from Noah’s backyard).

And how about koalas, wombats, Tasmanian devils, and frilled neck lizards? How did they get from Australia to the ark?

If you remember your Bible, there was one central land mass. Even science talks about Pangaea, but as happening millions of years ago when all the continents were altogether as one land mass.

But the Bible talks about that one land mass in creation and it was some time after the global flood that the land was divided as in the days of Peleg.

Genesis 1:[SUP]9 [/SUP]And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.[SUP] 10 [/SUP]And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

For all the waters to be in one place. so was the land.

Genesis 10:25And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

I submit that the Atlantic Ocean was once land from which the fountains of the deep has come up from at the time of the flood, which over time after the flood, the weight of that land over that cavity had caused it to collapsed.

Why didn’t the pair of Allosaurus fragilis dinosaurs eat Adam and his family when they arrived at his house? Had the pair of Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaurs already eaten the family? Whoops! No, that could not have been the case. If these and the very many other kinds of carnivorous dinosaurs did not eat Adam and his family, what did they eat for 150 days while they were on board the ark; and what did they eat after they got off the ark?

Because originally there were no meat eaters before the flood. Even mankind were to get their meats from herbs like the rest of the living did.

Genesis 1:[SUP]29 [/SUP]And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.[SUP] 30 [/SUP]And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

It was after the flood, mankind was to get their meat from the animals also.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.[SUP] 2 [/SUP]And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.[SUP] 3 [/SUP]Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.Whatever herbs that was around before the flood for the meat of man, was obviously not around also for those animals that require that kind of meat that they had to get it from other animals.

That's right. All living things were plant eaters originally before the flood.

When Christ reigns on earth, the lion will eat hay like the ox and the wolf shall lie down with the lamb which is highly suggestive that all living things will be plant eaters again as those herbs in the new earth will obviously return to serve as meat for all living things with man.