Wasn't there an actual ark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter athenaluvsdoves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
If we knew it to be true, then we could apply it to future events.

Do you ever get the feeling that the current financial situation is effected by perception, thus making it worse?
Click to expand...
yeah, I wish they’d get a handle on futures trading for that reason.
 
StAnastasia said:
William, I have seen no one on this thread attacking the Bible. What I do see is a number of people well educated in science and in biblical theology, who recognize that the Bible was not written as a science textbook, as you are insisting. Cardinal Baronius once said that “the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens [or the earth] go.”

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
My apologies to you and Wirraway… My previous last answers didn’t note these answers as I used the email link to your then more recent posts.

I couldn’t agree more that the Bible was not written as a science textbook. It is also not a textbook of history in the way that you find textbooks written for school. I think you will agree that these ancient writers included details that were important to them and the audience in their culture. We have a very different way of writing history today.

Let’s try out the idea that this story is fictional truth or Myth. What happens? You have things that are included to explain that G_d intended to preserve only a few things and wipe the rest out.

In Greek culture the “gods” were understood to exist. Moreover you also have them doing things that would be perfectly plausible for those “gods” to do, each following their own nature. Details are all present to make the story credible.

What I find interesting is the phrase Waters of the Deep or “the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” So what were the springs of the great deep? It would have been something that the culture believed in or could comprehend. It certainly isn’t rain from the sky. that would be a redundancy.
Also Myths don’t usually cite dates. “seventeenth day of the second month” Gen 7:11
Slight segway> I had heard about a tribe that was hearing the miraculous stories in the Gospel and wouldn’t believe the missionary. They said (paraphrased) these are all really nice stories . However they wouldn’t believe them. One day the missionary started to read the geneology in Mathew. They said , " Oh! so these stories are true."
Historical narratives frequently carry geneologies. Myths might tell how some of the lesser “gods” were born , but do not go much beyond that.
I did think about your objection about the salt water killing the plants and raising the question what would the animals eat? It wasn’t immediately apparent.
Other questions previously posted such as the “kinds” vs. species questions I simply understood as being misunderstanding : A “Kind” is more like a family rather than a species. Only the gene pool is needed, not millions of specific species.
I re read the text . I found that the animals stay on board for a month and twenty seven days after the second dove was sent out. One might not expect this detail to be included in Sunday school readings. It isn’t the kind of thing that kids need to hear the story. Usually the story is abreviated and it is accepted as is. So it also seems that it might not be the kind of detail that you would need in a myth either.

I had never considered the condition of the earth at the end of the flood to be so abysmal. It is interesting.
All the posted objections to Noah and the Ark are those of a 20th century viewpoint. they are all naturalistic. Apologetics requires answering in a way that the culture can understand. The problem with the criticism that is launched is that it focuses on the idea that the " Arkoid" apologist starts with the Bible as a science book. I don’t think that they do. I do think that a modernist, humanist, or a secularist (and some other worldviews) will see it that way. In fact I don’t think they can help it.
Here’s the question: IF you were trying to explain something that you knew to be historically true, how might you go about it? How would others see your actions? What if you were dealing with something like the cruxifiction? or Jesus’s miracles?
 
William_inquire said:
…What I find interesting is the phrase Waters of the Deep or “the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” So what were the springs of the great deep? It would have been something that the culture believed in or could comprehend. It certainly isn’t rain from the sky. that would be a redundancy. … "
Click to expand...
to me, that’s poetic imagery.

but regardless, I’ll restate my position on this. if you choose to believe in ye arke as a miracle, then, that’s it, end of argument from me, and, I suspect, StA as well.

on the other hand, why do you now find it necessary to explain a miracle by shoehorning it into the language of engineering, marine architecture and physics? because it doesn’t work that way, you will never make it work, you’re not even close to addressing actual problems. trying to do so makes Christians look foolish and attracts mean spirited anti-Christian elements just waiting to strike.

responding to a challenge from a nonbeliever trying to get a rise out of you by saying, “its an article of Faith and I’m not going to argue hull displacement” is a LOT better than trying to engage on the practicalities of ship building only to rely on the handwave of God as a final resort, and if you’re going to do that, why not handwave a gas turbine engine into the equation?
 
the bible says somethin it’s true.
that’s the way i see it
i never liked getting involved in all that junk!
 
William_inquire said:
…Here’s the question: IF you were trying to explain something that you knew to be historically true, how might you go about it? How would others see your actions? What if you were dealing with something like the cruxifiction? or Jesus’s miracles?
Click to expand...
explain? or prove happened.
 
Could someone answer this question for me? Thanks. 🙂
PatG said:We have no way of knowing that (and there is no dogmatic statement requiring you to believe in Noah or the ark). We do, however, know that it is very possible to teach truths using stories involving fictional characters.
Click to expand...
athenaluvsdoves said:
In light of this comment, does the Church then discourage us from asking for the intercession of the Old Testament Patriarchs and other important figures from that time?

:confused:
Click to expand...
 
William_inquire said:
My apologies to you and Wirraway… My previous last answers didn’t note these answers as I used the email link to your then more recent posts.

I couldn’t agree more that the Bible was not written as a science textbook. It is also not a textbook of history in the way that you find textbooks written for school. I think you will agree that these ancient writers included details that were important to them and the audience in their culture. We have a very different way of writing history today.

Let’s try out the idea that this story is fictional truth or Myth. What happens? You have things that are included to explain that G_d intended to preserve only a few things and wipe the rest out.

In Greek culture the “gods” were understood to exist. Moreover you also have them doing things that would be perfectly plausible for those “gods” to do, each following their own nature. Details are all present to make the story credible.

What I find interesting is the phrase Waters of the Deep or “the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” So what were the springs of the great deep? It would have been something that the culture believed in or could comprehend. It certainly isn’t rain from the sky. that would be a redundancy.
Also Myths don’t usually cite dates. “seventeenth day of the second month” Gen 7:11
Slight segway> I had heard about a tribe that was hearing the miraculous stories in the Gospel and wouldn’t believe the missionary. They said (paraphrased) these are all really nice stories . However they wouldn’t believe them. One day the missionary started to read the geneology in Mathew. They said , " Oh! so these stories are true."
Historical narratives frequently carry geneologies. Myths might tell how some of the lesser “gods” were born , but do not go much beyond that.
I did think about your objection about the salt water killing the plants and raising the question what would the animals eat? It wasn’t immediately apparent.
Other questions previously posted such as the “kinds” vs. species questions I simply understood as being misunderstanding : A “Kind” is more like a family rather than a species. Only the gene pool is needed, not millions of specific species.
I re read the text . I found that the animals stay on board for a month and twenty seven days after the second dove was sent out. One might not expect this detail to be included in Sunday school readings. It isn’t the kind of thing that kids need to hear the story. Usually the story is abreviated and it is accepted as is. So it also seems that it might not be the kind of detail that you would need in a myth either.

I had never considered the condition of the earth at the end of the flood to be so abysmal. It is interesting.
All the posted objections to Noah and the Ark are those of a 20th century viewpoint. they are all naturalistic. Apologetics requires answering in a way that the culture can understand. The problem with the criticism that is launched is that it focuses on the idea that the " Arkoid" apologist starts with the Bible as a science book. I don’t think that they do. I do think that a modernist, humanist, or a secularist (and some other worldviews) will see it that way. In fact I don’t think they can help it.
Here’s the question: IF you were trying to explain something that you knew to be historically true, how might you go about it? How would others see your actions? What if you were dealing with something like the cruxifiction? or Jesus’s miracles?
Click to expand...
Here is how we teach history now:

What Patrick Henry really said:

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’ But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: ‘An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.’
Code: 
        These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.
So what do we conclude from this?
 
buffalo said:
…These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.
Click to expand...
which textbooks? I’d like to see what they actually say before commenting on what’s missing. however, the words obviously haven’t been erased from history books.
buffalo said:
So what do we conclude from this?
Click to expand...
“give me liberty or give me death” is a better catch phrase than the long quote.
 
Wirraway said:
cool. he made a 200’ house. what makes you think its a boat?
Click to expand...
Wirraway, to paraphrase the great contemporary logician O. J. Simpson, if it doesn’t float, it’s not a boat.😉 In fact, this “replica” is perched on a steel-hulled barge, which the Bible neglected to mention. Also, I find it a bit dishonest that the builder of this miniature ark used modern tools to build it.😃 Do you imagine Noah used solar generators to run his power tools, or did he tap into the ANEG? (the Ancient Near Eastern Grid)

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Wirraway, to paraphrase the great contemporary logician O. J. Simpson, if it doesn’t float, it’s not a boat.😉 In fact, this “replica” is perched on a steel-hulled barge, which the Bible neglected to mention. Also, I find it a bit dishonest that the builder of this miniature ark used modern tools to build it.😃 Do you imagine Noah used solar generators to run his power tools, or did he tap into the ANEG? (the Ancient Near Eastern Grid)

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I couldn’t figure out what it was sitting on, I thought, some kind of unusual dry dock.

Noah would have connected his marine diesels to an electrical generator to power his tools.
 
Wirraway said:
I couldn’t figure out what it was sitting on, I thought, some kind of unusual dry dock.

Noah would have connected his marine diesels to an electrical generator to power his tools.
Click to expand...
Did the indigenous Australian people attach solar-powered GPS locater devices to the marsupials, to help them navigate to Mespotamia?

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Did the indigenous Australian people attach solar-powered GPS locater devices to the marsupials, to help them navigate to Mespotamia?

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
remember, the earth was flat in those days. anyway, that was, as you well know, before GPS. they used LORAN.
 
Wirraway said:
remember, the earth was flat in those days. anyway, that was, as you well know, before GPS. they used LORAN.
Click to expand...
The weight of the billions of tons of water – in conjunction with the erosional washing – curved the earth until it became spherical.
 
StAnastasia said:
The weight of the billions of tons of water – in conjunction with the erosional washing – curved the earth until it became spherical.
Click to expand...
a good contractor would have installed enough dewatering pipes to prevent that.
 
theistgal said:
No one said it was. You misread SacredHeartFan’s post.
Click to expand...
Theistgal, “i never liked getting involved in all that junk!” is a childish, anti-intellectual remark that helps no one who is party to the discussion.:eek: It is certainly not worth of a Catholic who is heir to the great intellectual tradition of Augustine and Anselm, Albertus Magnus and Saint Thomas.

Prayerfully yours,
StAnastasia
 
William_inquire said:
What I find interesting is the phrase Waters of the Deep or “the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” So what were the springs of the great deep? It would have been something that the culture believed in or could comprehend. It certainly isn’t rain from the sky. that would be a redundancy.
Click to expand...
I think the answer to this is in the earlier chapters of Genesis. Without direct reference to the text, God created the earth covered with water Gen 1:1 (so its no suprise it could be covered again during Noah’s flood), the land was brought up out of the water. In doing this the water would have to go under the land. Also ref to 2Peter3:5.

Also the waters were gathered in one place which would make the land far different then than today.

Gen 2:6 talks of streams and mist coming up out of the earth. There must have been huge amounts of underground water under pressure.

Hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top