Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

[Orogeny]

I find you to be very inconsistant. You need proof, which is available, to believe that God judged the world like He said He did, but then you believe that magically a waffer can be changed from one substance to a completely different substance.

No Hank, you need to read my posts again. I would accept the flood story as an actual event except that there should be tons of evidence and there is none. I don’t need evidence to accept it, but I won’t ignore the fact that there is no evidence when there would be.

They tried to prove this, but with the results showing that it stayed a waffer through out each and every test, they deemed that it is body and blood, regardless of the molecular make up.

??? Who is “they”? Please provide documentation that any scientific testing has found the consecrated Host to be flesh.

Without the flood, mountians would have been reduced to flat fields considering wind, rain, gravity and other eroding factors.
All I can say is that you have amazing faith, no matter if it is correct or not, it is amazing.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Mountains are not caused by floods. Floods are part of the forces that reduce mountains to plains.

Peace

Tim

 

[HankZ]

No Hank, you need to read my posts again. I would accept the flood story as an actual event except that there should be tons of evidence and there is none. I don’t need evidence to accept it, but I won’t ignore the fact that there is no evidence when there would be.??? Who is “they”? Please provide documentation that any scientific testing has found the consecrated Host to be flesh.That makes absolutely zero sense. Mountains are not caused by floods. Floods are part of the forces that reduce mountains to plains.

Peace

Tim

No matter how wrong you may be, you do have an amazing faith.

 

[Orogeny]

No matter how wrong you may be, you do have an amazing faith.

Thank you!

Peace

Tim

 

[HankZ]

Thank you!

Peace

Tim

The word of God tells us that out of love we should try to help others understand the truth so they may have life. I can’t say that is exactly what I have done. I am sorry for the times I was being rude. I want you to know, I have and will continue to pray for you. I hope that some day, the Lord will flip on a light for you, and then you can have that “ahh ha!” moment. If that day ever comes for you, I assure you it will be glorious.
Hank

 

[Orogeny]

I am sorry for the times I was being rude.

I didn’t think you were being rude, so nothing to apologize for.

I want you to know, I have and will continue to pray for you.

Thank you for that. I can use all the prayers I can get!

I hope that some day, the Lord will flip on a light for you, and then you can have that “ahh ha!” moment. If that day ever comes for you, I assure you it will be glorious.

It was!

Peace

Tim

 

[Valke2]

The 120 years was not an age limit, but the warning time.

What do you mean by warning time? It is pretty clear that an age limit of 120 is set by God in Genesis, although it is not immediatly put into effect.

 

[Mark_Renaud]

If the flooding of the Mediterranean was the flood of Genesis, how come there is still water in the Mediterranean?

Gen 8:14 - “In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.”.

Peace

Tim

Tim,
Are you going with a ‘literal’ interpretation of Gen. 8;14 or is it part of the ‘story’?

If God tells us about a flood that He is sending to cover the whole earth and destroy all of mankind - should we take it as a story or as fact? What is your criterion? Did God say that this was going to be a story?

If God tells us that the communion wafer turns into the Body of Jesus and the wine turns into His blood - should we take it as a story or as fact? What is your criterion? Did God tell us that it is just a story about the bread changing to flesh?

Keep it simple, remember I’m a new member, and you have already accused me of being a literalists - without giving me your defintion.

I am looking for consistent criterion to view all of Gods Word with.
Whatever you apply to the the flood account would also have to apply to the words of God in the New Testament as well - if you are interested in being consistent.

Mark Renaud

 

[Mark_Renaud]

What do you mean by warning time? It is pretty clear that an age limit of 120 is set by God in Genesis, although it is not immediatly put into effect.

All wars are civil wars because all men are brothers.
Francois Fenelon

"I think that you meant to say that all wars are “uncivil” wars because all men are brothers - we all are descendants of Noah.
Mark Renaud

 

[buffalo]

What do you mean by warning time? It is pretty clear that an age limit of 120 is set by God in Genesis, although it is not immediatly put into effect.

Genesis Chapter 6

His days shall be, etc… The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim,
Are you going with a ‘literal’ interpretation of Gen. 8;14 or is it part of the ‘story’?

Part of the story.

By the way, what is the context of my posting that part of scripture?

If God tells us about a flood that He is sending to cover the whole earth and destroy all of mankind - should we take it as a story or as fact? What is your criterion? Did God say that this was going to be a story?

I don’t quite understand your question. You really don’t know what my answer is yet? Have you read any of my posts?

The story of Noah is just that - a story. There was not a global flood. And yes, He did tell us it is a story when He gave us the ability to understand that the physical evidence of a recent global flood doesn’t exist. Unless you want to make the “God the Deceiver” argument, you can’t ignore the lack of evidence for a recent, global flood.

If God tells us that the communion wafer turns into the Body of Jesus and the wine turns into His blood - should we take it as a story or as fact? What is your criterion? Did God tell us that it is just a story about the bread changing to flesh?

Round and round we go. Sorry, Mark, but I am a Catholic. I don’t have to take the entire bible literally. For some reason, you don’t accept the idea that the fact that parts of the scriptures are not literal doesn’t mean that all of scripture is not literal.

Keep it simple, remember I’m a new member, and you have already accused me of being a literalists - without giving me your defintion.

So, you are not a literalist? Really? Are you? What is your definition of a literalist?

Are all scriptures (I’ll let you exclude the parables) to be read literally?

I am looking for consistent criterion to view all of Gods Word with.
Whatever you apply to the the flood account would also have to apply to the words of God in the New Testament as well - if you are interested in being consistent.

Good. Then you can use the criteria that I have spelled out to you and you will be absolutely consistent.

Peace

Tim

 

[Fox]

15 Million? You believe there are 15 Million different kinds of animals? quote]

Yes I do, there is 3000-4000 species of spiders alone, living in South Africa for example.

 

[severntofall]

That is an excellent question. If you question the teachings of Moses, then that may be a new thread you could start. This one happens to be about Noah’s Ark and the flood.

It has strayed off more than once.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It has strayed off more than once.

They tend to ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Apparently you missed post#897. Here it is again.
Genisis 1:27; God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genisis 2:3- Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Then Genisis 2:7-Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.By your reasoning, this would mean that God made man before and after the seventh day. So we now have 2 Adam’s and 2 Eve’s.
How do you explain this?

**Apples & oranges. The one account includes the other. Hence the order: first the wider then the narrower perspective. **​

**Unlike failing to read the text literally - a failure which involves setting texts against each other & making Adam have non-existent great-grandchildren. If he had his other sons before Seth, who seems from the text to be his third - why is only Seth mentioned ? Gen. 4 says why: he replaces Abel. But what stopped his elder brothers born after Abel, but before Seth, from doing so ? **

**And why are the descendants of those those elder brothers begotten between Abel & Seth not mentioned ? Why is Enos son of Seth mentioned, but none of his older male cousins ? If OTOH Seth & Enos both counted as eldest sons (albeit by replacement in Seth’s case), the mention of Enos is explicable: his uncles we know of already; then his father is named, then him, then his son Mahalaleel (to whose piety Enoch explicitly refers). **

---

Between them, Genesis & the Book of Enoch tell us what we need to know.

**Your order of events raises questions, instead of answering them. **

 

[peary]

I just read where they found evidence of a massive tsunami that hit the eastern Mediterranean coast of the Holy Land about 7-8000 years ago, and it is possible that this was the origin of the Noah story.

 

[Mark_Renaud]

Part of the story.

By the way, what is the context of my posting that part of scripture?I don’t quite understand your question. You really don’t know what my answer is yet? Have you read any of my posts?

The story of Noah is just that - a story. There was not a global flood. And yes, He did tell us it is a story when He gave us the ability to understand that the physical evidence of a recent global flood doesn’t exist. Unless you want to make the “God the Deceiver” argument, you can’t ignore the lack of evidence for a recent, global flood.Round and round we go. Sorry, Mark, but I am a Catholic. I don’t have to take the entire bible literally. For some reason, you don’t accept the idea that the fact that parts of the scriptures are not literal doesn’t mean that all of scripture is not literal.So, you are not a literalist? Really? Are you? What is your definition of a literalist?

Are all scriptures (I’ll let you exclude the parables) to be read literally?Good. Then you can use the criteria that I have spelled out to you and you will be absolutely consistent.

Peace

Tim

Tim, if all you have to offer is what you have written then your criterion is so subjective that it leaves me thinking that your own ‘feelings’, ‘experiences’, ‘thoughts’, and ‘attitudes’ are really what leads you to make the distinctions in Scriptures when you subjectively decide what is actual historical facts and what is supposedly ‘stories’.

Even your reasoning: ***“Sorry, Mark, but I am a Catholic. I don’t have to take the entire bible literally”, ***leaves me wondering where are you thinking clearly on this subject. Huh?

Jesus Himself said, “…as in was in the days of Noah…etc…” Are we to take His words concerning God’s flood at the time of Noah as ‘story’? Jesus Himself also said, “This is my body” Are we to take His words as ‘story’? What distinctives are you using to come to different conclusions on the words of Jesus? You must have more than you have written about. ***“And yes, He did tell us it is a story when He gave us the ability to understand that the physical evidence of a recent global flood doesn’t exist.” ***
Is this really all you have?

I’m sorry if you have already covered this on this thread. I’m new here and I keep it pretty simple.

Still looking for something more substantial than “I’m a catholic” or “I don’t see, and therefore I refuse to believe…”

Sincerely, Mark Renaud

 

[HankZ]

I am taking His word to be fact. The Church teaches that the wafer is physically bread.Unless you want to consider the idea that the flood happened and God didn’t allow it to leave the physical evidence that would result from such an event, then there should be overwhelming evidence that the flood happened. There is none.I’m not being inconsistent. I am reading the story as the Church allows me to. In accordance with that, I am also using my training as a geologist to say that there is no evidence that the story of Noah is literally true.I do and I have given them to you.My criteria do apply to all of scripture.Am I a scriptural literallist? Like the Church, no. When Jesus spoke in parables, He wasn’t being literal. When Jesus spoke about Noah, He was speaking about a story that was well known to the audience He was addressing.

Peace

Tim

I have to ask. What evidence would you think to find after the whole world was washed with water. Do you need to see a big towel still drying parts of the desert? Maybe a little bit of Irish Spring bubbles frozen in the artic. What kind of proof do you know would be left by a world filled with water and then dry. I believe you live in Texas, where they have floods almost every year, yet there is no “evidence” after that water is gone. A few thousand years after a flood, what do you want to see for proof?

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, if all you have to offer is what you have written then your criterion is so subjective that it leaves me thinking that your own ‘feelings’, ‘experiences’, ‘thoughts’, and ‘attitudes’ are really what leads you to make the distinctions in Scriptures when you subjectively decide what is actual historical facts and what is supposedly ‘stories’.

Even your reasoning: ***“Sorry, Mark, but I am a Catholic. I don’t have to take the entire bible literally”, ***leaves me wondering where are you thinking clearly on this subject. Huh?

So?

Jesus Himself said, “…as in was in the days of Noah…etc…” Are we to take His words concerning God’s flood at the time of Noah as ‘story’?

Yep.

Jesus Himself also said, “This is my body” Are we to take His words as ‘story’?

Nope.

What distinctives are you using to come to different conclusions on the words of Jesus?

I already told you. You just don’t want to listen.

You must have more than you have written about. ***“And yes, He did tell us it is a story when He gave us the ability to understand that the physical evidence of a recent global flood doesn’t exist.” ***
Is this really all you have?

Your lack of ability to understand how significant that is doesn’t surprise me. That lack of comprehension will keep you asking “Is this really all you have?”.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I have to ask. What evidence would you think to find after the whole world was washed with water. Do you need to see a big towel still drying parts of the desert? Maybe a little bit of Irish Spring bubbles frozen in the artic. What kind of proof do you know would be left by a world filled with water and then dry.

I would expect, drum roll please, flood deposits! Deposits that cover the entire world at the same stratigraphic level.

I believe you live in Texas, where they have floods almost every year, yet there is no “evidence” after that water is gone.

Sorry, Hank, but you don’t know what you are talking about. Of course, the limited floods leave deposits that be identified as flood deposits. And we are talking about nothing compared to a global flood.

A few thousand years after a flood, what do you want to see for proof?

Not proof, evidence. Get out a geology book and look up flood deposits. That type of deposit should be found across the world at the same stratigraphic level.

It doesn’t exist.

Peace

Tim

 

[HankZ]

**Apples & oranges. The one account includes the other. Hence the order: first the wider then the narrower perspective. **​

**Unlike failing to read the text literally - a failure which involves setting texts against each other & making Adam have non-existent great-grandchildren. If he had his other sons before Seth, who seems from the text to be his third - why is only Seth mentioned ? Gen. 4 says why: he replaces Abel. But what stopped his elder brothers born after Abel, but before Seth, from doing so ? **

**And why are the descendants of those those elder brothers begotten between Abel & Seth not mentioned ? Why is Enos son of Seth mentioned, but none of his older male cousins ? If OTOH Seth & Enos both counted as eldest sons (albeit by replacement in Seth’s case), the mention of Enos is explicable: his uncles we know of already; then his father is named, then him, then his son Mahalaleel (to whose piety Enoch explicitly refers). **

---

Between them, Genesis & the Book of Enoch tell us what we need to know.

**Your order of events raises questions, instead of answering them. **

A literal reading of scripture does not have this conflit you are pretending exist.