Believing the Bible.

[Bryan Lim]

Seriously, I cannot say that I 100% with FULL confidence that whatever happened in the Old Testament is true. Things like the big flood in Genesis are a little bit hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling God a liar. Who am I to say such things like that? I am a beliver like the rest of you. It is just that I find a lot of things that contradict to the Flood. For example, will the ship be big enough to carry all animal? What about feeding them especially the carnivores? Will animals survive that long in captivity?
I am in NO way insulting God or Christianity. All I am seeking is an HONEST discussion on the validity of the stories in Old Testament.
I respect God but if you wish to say something like 'Oh, God must have worked His miracles by providing meats from the air to feed carnivores,' etc etc, please do not contribute to this thread.
I look forward to know waht all of you think.
We believe in a great God. Amen.

[DawnTillery]

Didnt Noah take animals to eat?
The dimensions of the Ark are in the bible.

[DawnTillery]

Gen 6:15,16 and 6:22

[Macca]

Seriously, I cannot say that I 100% with FULL confidence that whatever happened in the Old Testament is true. Things like the big flood in Genesis are a little bit hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling God a liar. Who am I to say such things like that? I am a beliver like the rest of you. It is just that I find a lot of things that contradict to the Flood. For example, will the ship be big enough to carry all animal? What about feeding them especially the carnivores? Will animals survive that long in captivity?
I am in NO way insulting God or Christianity. All I am seeking is an HONEST discussion on the validity of the stories in Old Testament.
I respect God but if you wish to say something like 'Oh, God must have worked His miracles by providing meats from the air to feed carnivores,' etc etc, please do not contribute to this thread.
I look forward to know waht all of you think.
We believe in a great God. Amen.
None of these things would be a problem to our God.
According to the Bible, there were on carnivores until after the flood.
The suggestions I have read are that there was only a small number of species before the flood. so there would not have needed to be as much space as we tend to think
There would only have been one species of big cat, one species of dog, of elephant; and so forth. So instead of the huge number of species that exist today there would have only been relatively few.
There is a case for God having delayed the mating urges of the animals, and reducing their appetites.
There is fossil evidence on each continent to back up the belief that the flood was world wide.
:preach:

[snoochface]

I read a story in the paper not all that long ago, sometime in the last year, about fish fossils that were found in the rock of a mountain range - possibly in the Rockies, but it's been a while and I've forgotten the details (plus it's very early on a Sunday morning! ;)). This was right after I became a Christian so it must have been between April and June-ish of last year. Anyway, the story was in a legitimate newspaper and the discovery was made by a respected archeologist/anthropologist. I remember thinking at the time how much that seemed to verify the flood story. How else would a fish fossil end up in a rock at the top of a mountain?

[nickienoo]

hmmm thats a good point :) i think that it is sort of impossible for fossils to get on the top of mountains. so what are other explanations ? id like to see other peoples ideas because it is very interesting. it is all God, if your going to ask me. he is an amazing God and he makes the world go round, what makes you think that if he can make the world go round, that he cant make a few animals on a ship cooperate? theres something to ponder on. well, what do u think?

[TheListener]

One question I always get slugged with from non-believers is "were there kangaroos on the ark?".

Well, were there?

Scientific evolution will disprove the theory of having far less species for something that happened so recently compared to the evolution theory making it ludricous to think that there were less species. If anything, there are less species today due to an unhealthy earth & overhunting.

My standard answer is "I don't know, I wasn't there to see it, I'll know one day when I might get a chance to actually meet Noah, who knows :)".

It's God's word & it's there for a reason. It's written in a certain way for a reason & that's good enough for me. The important thing is, there is a point to the story & if they were to write the entire story of Noah it would probably take a more than a few paraghraphes.

If they (the non-believers) want to disprove something I give them Jesus' ressurection & then watch them squirm ;)

But anyway, what do you guys think anyway, were there kangaroos on the ark?

[snoochface]

I don't know anything about kangaroos, so maybe I'm missing the significance of the question. Are they a more recently evolved animal that would make it less likely for them to have been on the ark or something? Or is it just the habitat issue?

Personally I believe that if an animal existed on the earth at the time of Noah, the animal was on the ark.

[TheListener]

Looking at your signature, makes me wonder. What about penguins? Did they travel to antarctica to bring penguins on the ark?


personally my belief is that the flood might have been a bit more localised rather than the entire earth as we know it. When they say the "whole world" do they mean the earth as we know it? Keep in mind they thought the earth was flat those days too.

[Dark_Lite]

Seriously, I cannot say that I 100% with FULL confidence that whatever happened in the Old Testament is true. Things like the big flood in Genesis are a little bit hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling God a liar. Who am I to say such things like that? I am a beliver like the rest of you. It is just that I find a lot of things that contradict to the Flood. For example, will the ship be big enough to carry all animal? What about feeding them especially the carnivores? Will animals survive that long in captivity?
I am in NO way insulting God or Christianity. All I am seeking is an HONEST discussion on the validity of the stories in Old Testament.
I respect God but if you wish to say something like 'Oh, God must have worked His miracles by providing meats from the air to feed carnivores,' etc etc, please do not contribute to this thread.
I look forward to know waht all of you think.
We believe in a great God. Amen.

The Church and the Bible explain the why, science explains the how.

Some of the stories (parts of Genesis) can simply not be taken literally in light of the evidence. The Earth is not 6,000 years old... There is no physically possible way Noah could have carried EVERY single type of animal on to his ark either. The flood was most likely an extremely large local flood that was passed down through the generations. There's a lot of correlations between the first parts of Genesis and the Gilgamesh legend from the Babylonians.

Genesis is a story of man's fall from perfection, not a science text.

[Macca]

Looking at your signature, makes me wonder. What about penguins? Did they travel to antarctica to bring penguins on the ark?


personally my belief is that the flood might have been a bit more localised rather than the entire earth as we know it. When they say the "whole world" do they mean the earth as we know it? Keep in mind they thought the earth was flat those days too.
No! they did not consider the earth to be flat in those days; it was not until the dark ages that the Church began to believe that the earht was flat.
Yes there would have been kangaroos on the ark, and platypus, koalas, and all the other marsipuals of Australia.
I believe that there was one super continent before the flood, and all the earhtquakes and volcanic eruptions caused the continent to split into the land masses we know today. So a world wide flood is quite possible.
If the flood was not world wide then God has broken His promise to Noah not to destroy the earth with a flood again. How many localised floods have we seen? Each one would be a broken promise if the Biblical flood was not world wide.
:preach:

[snoochface]

genesis 7:4

I do believe the flood was world-wide. This passage says "the earth", not "this particular region in which you are living".

genesis 7:8

I also believe every animal on the earth and in the air were on the ark, based on this passage.

genesis 7:17-20

This explains how the fish fossils could have been found in the rocks of the mountains.

genesis 7:22

Every creature was wiped out throughout the earth - again, not just in that particular region.

genesis 9:11

As was previously stated, if the flood did not wipe out the entire earth, but only that particular region, God's promise in this passage would be broken. There have been many flood that have wiped out individual areas, but there has never been another world-wide, earth-covering flood.

As for the earth not being 6,000 years old and the Bible stories of Genesis not being taken literally, I disagree on these points. There have been controversies and debates over carbon-dating that make it unclear as to the accuracy of the process, but beyond that I have difficulty with the concept of us humans picking and choosing the stories in the Bible we are going to take literally and those we do not. It seems to me that the entire Bible should be taken literally, except where it is clear that something is figurative, as in the parables in the gospels and the symbolism of some prophecies. Otherwise it becomes difficult to decide what is truth and what is not. I mean, how do we base our faith on something that we don't believe to be the absolute truth of God's word?

[twistedsketch]

The flood was most likely an extremely large local flood that was passed down through the generations.
Actually, there is scientific evidence that the whole world was once covered in water.


There's a lot of correlations between the first parts of Genesis and the Gilgamesh legend from the Babylonians.
That is true. When more than one ancient culture points to a massive flood, it is more likely that such a flood existed. While Gilgamesh differs on the details of the size of both the ark and the flood both mention a large and terrible flood as well as an ark full of animals.

[DawnTillery]

The Church and the Bible explain the why, science explains the how.

Some of the stories (parts of Genesis) can simply not be taken literally in light of the evidence. The Earth is not 6,000 years old... There is no physically possible way Noah could have carried EVERY single type of animal on to his ark either. The flood was most likely an extremely large local flood that was passed down through the generations. There's a lot of correlations between the first parts of Genesis and the Gilgamesh legend from the Babylonians.

Genesis is a story of man's fall from perfection, not a science text.

I always find it FUNNY... Scientist NEVER prove anything TRUE, they just prove it false, if they CANT prove it false then it must be true..
Do you think they got it backwards?

[DawnTillery]

Actually, there is scientific evidence that the whole world was once covered in water.
I am just pointing something out and maybe others can tell me what they think...
In Genesis 1:7-9
it talks about "let the dry land appear" Do you think maybe.... that the world at that point was covered in water? (Because He seperated the land and water)

I heard a science teacher once say there was a flood on the earth, but it couldnt be the flood in the Bible in the days of Noah, so I started searching and found that and said Welllll..... Maybe thats it..
What do you think?
Again this is something to ponder...



That is true. When more than one ancient culture points to a massive flood, it is more likely that such a flood existed. While Gilgamesh differs on the details of the size of both the ark and the flood both mention a large and terrible flood as well as an ark full of animals.[/QUOTE]

[TheListener]

That's fair enough. I stand corrected re the localised flooding remark.

How do we explain dinosaurs if the earth is only 6000 years old? Were they around during Biblical times?

[Macca]

I am just pointing something out and maybe others can tell me what they think...
In Genesis 1:7-9
it talks about "let the dry land appear" Do you think maybe.... that the world at that point was covered in water? (Because He seperated the land and water)

I heard a science teacher once say there was a flood on the earth, but it couldnt be the flood in the Bible in the days of Noah, so I started searching and found that and said Welllll..... Maybe thats it..
What do you think?
Again this is something to ponder...

When God separated the water from the dry land there were no animals created to leave fossils, so no it could not be that situation.


That is true. When more than one ancient culture points to a massive flood, it is more likely that such a flood existed. While Gilgamesh differs on the details of the size of both the ark and the flood both mention a large and terrible flood as well as an ark full of animals.[/QUOTE]

[Macca]

That's fair enough. I stand corrected re the localised flooding remark.

How do we explain dinosaurs if the earth is only 6000 years old? Were they around during Biblical times?
Yes they were. Noah took immature dinosaurs on the ark. There is a reference to dinosaurs in the book of Job.
:preach:

[TheListener]

Yes they were. Noah took immature dinosaurs on the ark. There is a reference to dinosaurs in the book of Job.
:preach:

Which part of Job? I must have missed it. And is there references to Noah taking dinosaurs onto the ark?

And pardon my ignorance but... Are you serious?

[Macca]

The Church and the Bible explain the why, science explains the how.

Some of the stories (parts of Genesis) can simply not be taken literally in light of the evidence. The Earth is not 6,000 years old... There is no physically possible way Noah could have carried EVERY single type of animal on to his ark either. The flood was most likely an extremely large local flood that was passed down through the generations. There's a lot of correlations between the first parts of Genesis and the Gilgamesh legend from the Babylonians.

Genesis is a story of man's fall from perfection, not a science text.
How can you not take them literally? Proof that the earth is not 6000 years old?
There were many less species of animals (as I said in an eariler post) only one species of dog, from which all other dog types bred, as so on for other species.
With the reduced number of species, there would not have been as many animals as you presume.
There are almost as many flood traditions as there are cultures, which is understandable as the variety of cultures all came from the dispersion from the tower of Babel.
:preach:

[TheListener]

Carbon dating on fossils will show the earth was older than 6000 years old.

How long ago was the flood?

[Simonline]

Seriously, I cannot say that I 100% with FULL confidence that whatever happened in the Old Testament is true. Things like the big flood in Genesis are a little bit hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling God a liar. Who am I to say such things like that? I am a beliver like the rest of you. It is just that I find a lot of things that contradict to the Flood. For example, will the ship be big enough to carry all animal? What about feeding them especially the carnivores? Will animals survive that long in captivity?
I am in NO way insulting God or Christianity. All I am seeking is an HONEST discussion on the validity of the stories in Old Testament.
I respect God but if you wish to say something like 'Oh, God must have worked His miracles by providing meats from the air to feed carnivores,' etc etc, please do not contribute to this thread.
I look forward to know waht all of you think.
We believe in a great God. Amen.

Firstly, an 'ark' is not a 'ship' (it was never intended to travel from 'A' to 'B') but rather a container in which to preserve that which is holy (as in the 'ark of the covenant' (Ex.25:10:22)). The idea of Noah's ark being a 'ship' has no real basis in scripture.

Secondly, I should like to recommend Genesis In Space And Time by Francis A. Schaeffer published by Inter Varsity Press (c) 1972 as an appologetic for taking the Bible seriously as a historical document (especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis) without necessarily having to take an absolutely literal position such as that of Henry M. Morris in his book [i]The Genesis Record published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, [ISBN 0-8010-6004-4] (c) 1976.

Simonline.

[snoochface]

Regarding dinosaurs in the Bible - see this link: http://www.allaboutgod.com/faq/dinosaurs.htm

Exerpts:

Many people don't realize that paleontology (the study of past geological ages based primarily on the study of fossils) is a relatively new science. In fact, the concept of "dinosaurs" only surfaced in its present form less than 180 years ago. Prior to that, anyone who found a large fossilized bone assumed it came from an elephant, dragon or giant. It wasn't until 1841 that English scientist Richard Owens suggested that the group of "newly discovered" animals be called "dinosaurs" (meaning, "terrible lizards"). Therefore, we shouldn't expect to see dinosaurs in the Bible, but we should expect to see descriptions of "dragons" and other large creatures. In fact, we do!

A search for the word "dragon" in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible produces 34 separate matches across 10 different books written between approximately 2000 BC and 90 AD. The word "dragon" ( Hebrew: tannin) is used throughout the Old Testament, and most directly translates as "sea or land monsters." Interestingly, Genesis 1:21 describes God's creation of sea dragons (tannin) on the 5th day.

Even more dramatic is the Book of Job, where the author describes the great land creature, Behemoth (Job 40), and the great water creature, Leviathan (Job 41). Although the latest Bible translations use the words elephant, hippo or crocodile instead of Behemoth and Leviathan, the original Hebrew and the context of the descriptions do not allow for these interpretations.

Regarding carbon dating - it's a controversy, and it is not as accurate as evolutionists would have you think. If you do some research on the internet about it, you will find a great many studies and articles on the carbon dating debate. There are many scientists who do not believe the earth can be anywhere near as old as the millions of years some scientists claim.

[DawnTillery]

[/QUOTE]
Hi :wave:
When I was speaking of the earth being covered in Water when the dry land appeared. I wasn't speaking of Animal fossils.. I was just getting your opinion if that at that point could of been considered a flood of some sort..:confused:
Not the Flood about Noah and the ark..

Thanks

[vinc]

I agree with Dark_Lite when he said "Church and the Bible explain the Why and Science explains the How". His complete reply was realistic.

I also agree with his statement that "Genesis is not a science text".

The Bible does contain translation errors especially when it comes to describing "How it all happened?" because humans were involved in the writings and translations. So, we should not ignore nor hide this important fact.

By thinking such questions you are not proving that God is a liar. In fact, you are proving that God has given us the reasoning capacity in the mind to think reasonably. And you are in no way insulting God or Christianity, the Honest discussion you are seeking is what every true christian ought to seek for.

Initially, like the rest of us, i believed that Noah indeed built a huge Ark to save his loved ones and a pair of all the different creatures that lived at that time. But, later with passing time and after reading some material i had similar questions.

I had always wondered about the measurements of Noah's Ark mentioned in OT. It would make Noah's Ark a smaller one than i imagined in my mind. But, the Great Flood did occur for sure during Noah's times.

I got a reasonable answer in certain manuscripts/texts belonging to the Naj Hammadi Library which reveal some more truths. 52 Manuscripts were found hidden in a jar in a place called Naj Hammadi in Egypt and were found in the year 1954. I recommend every serious Bible student to read all the 52 texts of the Naj Hammadi Library for their spiritual benefit.

"And he (the chief archon) repented for everything which had come into being through him. This time he planned to bring a flood upon the work of man. But the greatness of the light of the foreknowledge informed Noah, and he proclaimed (it) to all the offspring which are the sons of men. But those who were strangers to him did not listen to him. It is not as Moses said, 'They hid themselves in an ark' (Gn 7: 7), but they hid themselves in a place, not only Noah, but also many other people from the immovable race. They went into a place and hid themselves in a luminous cloud. And he (Noah) recognized his authority, and she who belongs to the light was with him, having shone on them because he (the chief archon) had brought darkness upon the whole earth." - From the manuscript titled The Apocryphon of John ( http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html) )

Some others also ponder whether Noah's Ark was some kind of a Spaceship which the Superior Beings (created by our Eternal, Infinite and Unbegotten God) provided to save them from the Great Flood at that time. This could be true if the "luminous cloud" mentioned in the above para of the Apocryphon of John (one of the books of the Naj Hammadi library) could be a primitive description of what we now call as a "spaceship".

We may get to know the Total Truth when Lord Jesus Christ comes a Second time to reign on earth for the 1000 years as predicted.

[Mr_E]

If Jesus could feed thousands with a couple loaves of bread, why couldn't God fit every animal in existence in the ark? God created the laws of physics, and he can bend them as he pleases.

[Dark_Lite]

How can you not take them literally? Proof that the earth is not 6000 years old?


Look around you. ALL of science disagrees with YECism. All of the evidence points to an old Earth and universe. YECism will be annihilated into history just like flat-earthism was.


There are almost as many flood traditions as there are cultures, which is understandable as the variety of cultures all came from the dispersion from the tower of Babel.
:preach:

Then there's the Egyptians with their unbroken 10,000 year history with no mention of any large flood. :)

[twistedsketch]

Look around you. ALL of science disagrees with YECism. All of the evidence points to an old Earth and universe. YECism will be annihilated into history just like flat-earthism was.
Or evolutionism could be. The premise behind science is that we do not have all the answers, and there is no such thing as a scientific fact. We make our best guess based on the evidence we have before us, and if we see more evidence, we modify our guess as to how the world works. Belief in macroevolution right now takes about as much faith as belief in Jesus does.

[Dark_Lite]

Belief in macroevolution right now takes about as much faith as belief in Jesus does.


....No.

With belief in Jesus, there isn't really any physical evidence at all to support things such as the ressurection. The only thing we have as a written record of Jesus' divine things are 2000 year old written documents that may or may not be just as valid as any other ancient holy book.

Evolution has plenty of evidence. Endogenous Retroviruses, transistional fossils, etc.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[TheListener]

I think what we are doing is no different than what the scientists are doing.

There are people who say that genesis was written according to the culture of the time in a symbollic way. Then there are those who say dinosaurs were around till the flood.

We're best guessing as the scientists are.

Good luck to you all. :)

[Macca]

Which part of Job? I must have missed it. And is there references to Noah taking dinosaurs onto the ark?

And pardon my ignorance but... Are you serious?
Read Job 41.
Yes I am serious.
:preach:

[TheListener]

I've read Job 41 & seen no references to Noah taking dinosaurs onto the ark.

[snoochface]

I've read Job 41 & seen no references to Noah taking dinosaurs onto the ark.

Maybe you missed my post and the accompanying link that described the dinosaurs mentioned in Job. I believe it's on the previous page.

No, it did not specifically say that Noah took them on the ark, but the fact that they appeared to exist during Job's time would lead one to believe that they were included in the "every creature on the face of the earth" passage that explains what was brought onto the ark.

[TheListener]

Maybe you missed my post and the accompanying link that described the dinosaurs mentioned in Job.

I've read the link but I tend not to be too trusting of everything that comes from man unless Biblical evidence is given. If I believed every "idea" people had I'd just go & join some cult promising me that I would be taken up into a spaceship hidden behind Halleys Comet where Elvis Presley will be waiting.

It is Biblical evidence and books based on Biblical as well as external evidence that interest me. Not some "I think it may have been like this" ideas.

By the way... Your link also failed to mention any juvie dino's on the ark. It only talked about dragons in most cultures might have been dinosaurs & that makes sense. I'm not completely closed minded.

Having said that,

Did you know a juvenile brontosaurus can be the size of 10 fully grown african elephants?

And if they were on the ark, which no one can seem to prove, what made them extinct? The flood would make sense with a young earth creation theory but if they were on the ark, where are they now? All the other animals thrived, and multiplied into different species as you have all stated. What about the poor dinosaurs? Why didn't they thrive & multiply in number and species?

I think the theory about dinosaurs on the ark is flawed & unbiblical.

YIC
TheListener.

[AvgJoe]

Seriously, I cannot say that I 100% with FULL confidence that whatever happened in the Old Testament is true. Things like the big flood in Genesis are a little bit hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way calling God a liar. Who am I to say such things like that? I am a beliver like the rest of you. It is just that I find a lot of things that contradict to the Flood. For example, will the ship be big enough to carry all animal? What about feeding them especially the carnivores? Will animals survive that long in captivity?
I am in NO way insulting God or Christianity. All I am seeking is an HONEST discussion on the validity of the stories in Old Testament.
I respect God but if you wish to say something like 'Oh, God must have worked His miracles by providing meats from the air to feed carnivores,' etc etc, please do not contribute to this thread.
I look forward to know waht all of you think.
We believe in a great God. Amen.

Some interesting insights on the size of the ark:

"The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

The cubit is believed to have been no less than 18 inches long so this means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Interesting to note, its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas.

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts. The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

These insights, as well as, many others pertaining to this subject, are from the following website: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html - Check out the other questions at the end of the article.

[AvgJoe]

I read a story in the paper not all that long ago, sometime in the last year, about fish fossils that were found in the rock of a mountain range - possibly in the Rockies, but it's been a while and I've forgotten the details (plus it's very early on a Sunday morning! ;)). This was right after I became a Christian so it must have been between April and June-ish of last year. Anyway, the story was in a legitimate newspaper and the discovery was made by a respected archeologist/anthropologist. I remember thinking at the time how much that seemed to verify the flood story. How else would a fish fossil end up in a rock at the top of a mountain?

My wife's Grandma lives on a mountain, in the Texas Hill Country around San Antonio, at an elevation of about 2,000 feet. When we visit her, we always go fossil hunting and we have dozens of sealife fossils. All of the fossils we've found have been shell bearing creatures; clams, oysters, etc. We've found regular fossils where the imprint of the shells are in the rock and we've found dozens of the actual shells themselves, sometimes just parts of the shells, as well as, many complete specimens. Ya dig 'em right out of the side of the mountain. To anyone who may be able to answer this question, If Noah's Flood did not occur, how did these fossils get there?

[AvgJoe]

As for the earth not being 6,000 years old and the Bible stories of Genesis not being taken literally, I disagree on these points. There have been controversies and debates over carbon-dating that make it unclear as to the accuracy of the process,

A technical critique on radiometric dating: http://www.trueorigin.org//dating.asp (http://www.trueorigin.org//dating.asp)

but beyond that I have difficulty with the concept of us humans picking and choosing the stories in the Bible we are going to take literally and those we do not.

"All Scripture is God-breathed(inspired)..." 2 Timothy 3:16

[AvgJoe]

Look around you. ALL of science disagrees with YECism. All of the evidence points to an old Earth and universe. YECism will be annihilated into history just like flat-earthism was.

Theistic evolution undermines the whole Bible.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

And atheistic evolution denies God altogether.

Denying creation disagrees with Jesus whom spoke of it in the Gospels, as an actual event.

How do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

[AimlessEMF]

My wife's Grandma lives on a mountain, in the Texas Hill Country around San Antonio, at an elevation of about 2,000 feet. When we visit her, we always go fossil hunting and we have dozens of sealife fossils. All of the fossils we've found have been shell bearing creatures; clams, oysters, etc. We've found regular fossils where the imprint of the shells are in the rock and we've found dozens of the actual shells themselves, sometimes just parts of the shells, as well as, many complete specimens. Ya dig 'em right out of the side of the mountain. To anyone who may be able to answer this question, If Noah's Flood did not occur, how did these fossils get there?

I think the common answer from the scientific community would be that the shifting of the Earth's surface is why there are fossils such as these in the mountains. In other words the land that is now mountains may have a very very very very long time ago been some body of water.
Plate Tectonics and all that stuff.

[Dark_Lite]

Theistic evolution undermines the whole Bible.

I've been through that list before. It's a nice slippery slope, but their argument is not very solid. It falls apart easily once you even the least bit into it.

[TheListener]

It's not a matter of believing only parts of the Bible you agree with. Not at all. It's about reading parts of the Bible & interpreting it as it was meant to be understood.

Tell me then, when Jesus said "I am the vine" was he saying that he was a tree, made out of wood and had leaves?

The way we read a telephone book and the way we read poetry are different because the interpretations are different. I would keep that in mind when reading the Bible. Thats why a study Bible & discussing the passages with an educated minister really helps.

[baggs]

I've done plenty of reading and watching on this topic, and most of the stuff about this topic I got answers from
dinosaurs.info
I'ts a website with videos you can watch so u dont get tired of reading stuff.

username is Creation, and password is Seminar.

I believe whatever the bible claims as fact is indeed fact, whatever it claims literal is indeed literal, and whatever it claims is figurative is figurative. And the mere fact that Jesus quoted the book of Genesis so many times, I would have to assume that Jesus himself believed it.

Coal and Oil supports the flood, the Grand canyon supports the flood, The extinct species support the flood, Radioactive polonium halos from Halos.Com supports instantaneous creation, The book of Job proves that the behemoth with its Tail like a cedar tree (which is a large tree) matches a brachiosaurus. It would be a twig not a tree if it was an elephant or hippo.

I believe Evolution is true to some extent, but only on variation within kinds.
A dog wolf coyote and a poodle, are the same kind of animal, and probably the same ancestor A DOG! You can have a white baby brown baby and a dark skinned baby, that doesn't mean they are not human, that would make you a RACIST!
Brown cow white cow black cow, STILL A COW! Noah only needed to bring male and female and the rest could descend from that. You can create a different breed of dogs within 10 generations of dogs, I believe thats how long it took to make a chiwauwa. But its still a dog.!

As for the dinosaurs, I believe that Noah did bring dinosaurs in, Eggs or so, but because of the flood, the earth was so drastically changed, air pressure, oxygen levels, and food scarcity would have affected them, Habitats would also be something important to consider for such large animals, since all the large trees would have been uprooted and buried turned to coal. But anyway the rest would have been hunted down for either the large amounts of meat they carry or simply because of the threat they pose. It would also include people hunting them to simply be called heroes. How popular do you think youll gonna be if you slay a dinosaur? or what they called " DRAGONS" back in the day, since the word dinosaur wasnt even invented yet.

Final points, God said to Noah. COME HERE!. ( Talking about the Ark)
Where does God have to be to say "COME HERE".
God had to be inside the ark to say COME HERE, if He wasnt he would have to say GO THERE. That would explain everything else that happens inside the ark, the absence of deseases etc.

And of course, The ressurection validates everything. If you study historical evidence outside the bible youll find that it corroborates (supports) the claims of the gospels.

Peace and God bless.

[TheListener]

Where did Jesus quote Genesis?

[artybloke]

I believe whatever the bible claims as fact is indeed fact, whatever it claims literal is indeed literal, and whatever it claims is figurative is figurative.

That's OK then. Nobody in the Bible ever claims the creation accounts to be "literal." In fact, the very concept of "literal" as opposed to "figurative" is an idea foreign to the writers of the Bible, as they did not have any scientific method to speak of and the whole idea of literalism is fraught with modernist (ie post Enlightenment) assumptions anyway.

The problem with taking the Bible at face value is not that it isn't desirable, but that it very rarely it all all happens. Everyone comes to the Bible with a whole raft of presuppositions that come from their upbringing, their faith (Catholic or Protestant, for instance) and where they are emotionally and intellectually. Nobody comes to the Bible with a clean slate.

[vinc]

Hope the webpages below help in clearer understanding to prevail concerning this thread of discussion -

(1) How We Got The Bible - http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/howgetbible.htm (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/howgetbible.htm)

(2) All scripture is NOT inspired of G-d - http://biblelogic.com/Studies/2Tim3-16.htm (http://biblelogic.com/Studies/2Tim3-16.htm)

(3) What place does the Bible have as a rule of faith? - http://www.awitness.org/essays/rulefaith.html (http://www.awitness.org/essays/rulefaith.html)

I do not endorse the other articles found on the above-mentioned websites nor do i agree with all of their beliefs. But, i appreciate and agree with the articles whose links are mentioned above.

[baggs]

Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Both from biblegateway
If the Beginning meant Beginning. Then It really means Beginning.
Thus "the Beginning" meant " In the Beginning" making a quote from Genesis :preach: "Haven't you read," :liturgy:

26th July 2005 02:45 PMTheListenerWhere did Jesus quote Genesis?26th July 2005 02:40 PM

[artybloke]

Coal and Oil supports the flood, the Grand canyon supports the flood

Sounds like you'r been taking too much Hovind. I suggest a good dose of www.talkorigins.org

[scrauto]

As far as Im concerned my lord said it happened then it happened and that is what faith is all about to me

[TheListener]

As far as Im concerned my lord said it happened then it happened and that is what faith is all about to me

I agree. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't affect my salvation. I'm happy to take it on board as a 6 day creation however I don't know the metaphorical meaning of the 6 days in terms of how long it took. That's God's business.