I'm no goddess. I'm a high priestess. I'm also a b*tch sometimes.

Probably clinically insane too.

Jeannie B. and Abra and anyone who cares:

My faith is based on what I have learned through my life so far. I have been taught ever since I can remember, but, I do remember being in Sunday school in the Baptist church when I became aware of my beliefs. I love God with all my heart, all my soul, and with all my strength. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, the Messiah and son of God. God become flesh. He put Himself through the indignity and sufferings of being born flesh and blood man so that He could teach us what we need to know to get to our heavenly reward. That of communing with God. I believe that Hell is the deprivation of not knowing God when this body gives out. I do not believe in the fires of hell. My soul has not been sold, nor will it ever be. I want to walk with God. I will walk with God. My faith has never wavered. I was speaking because Abra said, "if you are a bad person, worship the bible....." I do not worship the Bible. I trust in and worship our God, based on the teachings I have learned since childhood, and, through my own personal relationship with Him.

That's nice. I'm sure you will go strait to heaven when you die.

Worse yet - what if everything you hear on television is TRUE!

There's a frightening thought.

Hmmm... A typical thread. Already on age three and no one has adressed Tribo's post - other than Belushi - the only tried and true atheist on the thread, and his defense of the passage was the most co-herant. My T.V. is off - so how did I end up on the Twilight Zone?

I tend to agree with Miguesls post that there are certainly metephorical and theological lessons to be gleened by the flood story - but I can't see just stopping there. We have numerous examples of Parables in the scriptures, and this does not fit the pattern - so consideration of "literal" interpretation, as Tribo so aptly put it must be adressed and not just carelessly dismissed as fable by those who's faith remains with the inspiration of the author. I remain convinced that the ark was capable of holding all the species, and I do not dismiss the wonderings of Di, she brings up interesting points to ponder. As usual - Spider has provided us with an accurate timeline - my faith in his research surpasses that of any others.

Now - having been sited in the OP concerning this topic - I almost feel compeled to respond. I looked closer at the passages Tribo, and I noticed that there isn't a reference to sea creatures. The reference to "all creatures under the heavens" were qualified to those who had the breath of life in them, and all of the references are to creatures that "moved about the earth/ground", of birds of the air. He tells Noah to take two of every bird and creature that moves along the ground - as well as the food that will sustain them. (In response to Di's question)
He goes on to further explain that there were to be more of the clean animals - then goes on to explain that they are used in Noah's sacrifices.
Obviously - if sacrifieces were expected (and we know they were) that explains the additional numbers of some - but does not contradict that there were to be two of everything in order to procreate. To those familiar with the customs of Noah - this is a mere formality to even bring up the need for additional clean animals. As the intended readers of Genesis would clearly understand. It remains fairly obvious that Noah did not have to accumulate those creatures in the sea - which is why they are not mentioned. Nor does it seem impoertant to question whether or not God destroyed all but two of every sea creature - or if Noah spent all of his time fishing in order to feed everyone. I don't see these premises as adding or taking anything away from the text.

So - from a literal view - I don't see the "impossibility" of this, nor do I see glaring contradictions. Given the fact that it could have easily rained for 40 days and 40 nights (I swear that's been what's happened in New Hampshire for the past two months) the rest of it seems pretty straight forward. Easier to believe than the parting of the Red Sea - or the walls of Jerico falling down - or for that matter, the temple being destroyed. Yet - if you stand in Jerusalem, you can see where it was.

Did I miss anything?

Hi eljay - yes you did miss something go back and read my original post - there i bring up the part about:

Malaw = replenish in gen 1 and in noahs case also - and spider i think it was telling me it maent to "fill in gensis 1 but now it's used in noakhs the exact same word to most definitely mean = REpopulate!! their is no other choice - i cannot believe that in gen it means one thing and in noahs case what i said it meant to begin with so please explain this to me ok?

then i will respond on what you have written above.

Actually not really. The real truth is much much worse.

Hmmm... A typical thread. Already on age three and no one has adressed Tribo's post - other than Belushi - the only tried and true atheist on the thread, and his defense of the passage was the most co-herant. My T.V. is off - so how did I end up on the Twilight Zone?

I tend to agree with Miguesls post that there are certainly metephorical and theological lessons to be gleened by the flood story - but I can't see just stopping there. We have numerous examples of Parables in the scriptures, and this does not fit the pattern - so consideration of "literal" interpretation, as Tribo so aptly put it must be adressed and not just carelessly dismissed as fable by those who's faith remains with the inspiration of the author. I remain convinced that the ark was capable of holding all the species, and I do not dismiss the wonderings of Di, she brings up interesting points to ponder. As usual - Spider has provided us with an accurate timeline - my faith in his research surpasses that of any others.

Now - having been sited in the OP concerning this topic - I almost feel compeled to respond. I looked closer at the passages Tribo, and I noticed that there isn't a reference to sea creatures. The reference to "all creatures under the heavens" were qualified to those who had the breath of life in them, and all of the references are to creatures that "moved about the earth/ground", of birds of the air.

TRIBO:

granted



He tells Noah to take two of every bird and creature that moves along the ground - as well as the food that will sustain them. (In response to Di's question)
He goes on to further explain that there were to be more of the clean animals - then goes on to explain that they are used in Noah's sacrifices.
Obviously - if sacrifieces were expected (and we know they were) that explains the additional numbers of some - but does not contradict that there were to be two of everything in order to procreate. To those familiar with the customs of Noah - this is a mere formality to even bring up the need for additional clean animals. As the intended readers of Genesis would clearly understand.


TRIBO:

so your saying then that noah needed an extra 6 pairs of each clean animal to offer as sacrifices to god? and only two to keep for repopoulation?
hmmmm. maybe you can show me where this amount of sacrfices was done within the book - i have never read of that amount of animal sacrifices taking place in the bible? thnx.




It remains fairly obvious that Noah did not have to accumulate those creatures in the sea - which is why they are not mentioned.

TRIBO: granted i already stated that in our other discussion.




Nor does it seem impoertant to question whether or not God destroyed all but two of every sea creature - or if Noah spent all of his time fishing in order to feed everyone. I don't see these premises as adding or taking anything away from the text.


TRIBO:

it is only important in him stating that he would destroy everything under heaven, if the sealike is/was under heaven then either i am not understanding the word or god is stating everything to be taken as everything correct?





So - from a literal view - I don't see the "impossibility" of this, nor do I see glaring contradictions. Given the fact that it could have easily rained for 40 days and 40 nights (I swear that's been what's happened in New Hampshire for the past two months) the rest of it seems pretty straight forward. Easier to believe than the parting of the Red Sea - or the walls of Jerico falling down - or for that matter, the temple being destroyed. Yet - if you stand in Jerusalem, you can see where it was.

TRIBO:

let's not even go there yet were to far away from talking of the temple as of now - thats a whooooole other point entirely - yet i will mention that jesus said their would not be one stone upon the other and yet - there were and are? hmmmm?





Did I miss anything?

JB,

look at the bright side.

you have many friends here.

THNX B, - now figure the size of 16 animals of each species that exist and how much room of each of these 16 of every species would have taken up in "floor space" on the ark and get back to me on if it fits your give stated assuptions ok? thnx in advance i know you'll do an excellent job.

And just think about this Tribo, there are species in the rain forest that even today have not been discovered or named. The idea that all of these species were gathered, or voluntarily came to Noah and boarded his boat is ludicrous.

Do people really believe this story seriously? Surly not one person could believe that two of every species of animal in the world today at one time boarded a wooden boat and lived there for a year. Surly not. Please tell me that people don't really believe this. If they do, then I know I in the midst of insanity.

How came I here in this place with these green and yellow people? Forget looking for an honest man, I'm looking for sane and reasonable people.

Even if there is, dear Tribo, do you think you can reason with them?

JB

HMMM? reason?? maybe i can reason with them but i'm not sure if the outcome would be a logical conclusion - will have to see JB.

here is another question about the ark i just posted on throw down that befuddles me - so to say -

seems like spider is gone for now and eljay must have just come on for a while -sigh, oh wel somebody will tackle it eventually i suppose, all i'm looking for is a logical and biblical answer.

hers another one i dont get either

supposedly the FLOOD covered all the earth by 15 cubits of water in genisis 7-19 and 20 - thats only 22.5 ft of water at 18" per cubit - so my question is were the tallest mountains then only less than 22.5 ft high? if so which i dont buy, then was mount arrarat which is the mountain the ark supposedly came to rest upon of this height or less?

compared to the dimensions of the ark - 450 ft. in length, it would be like resting on a hill not a mountain correct? Of course i suspect you will try to say mt arrarat has grown over time, but listen carefully what is being stated is that "NO" mountains >>any where on the pangian continent<< were any higher than 22.5 ft - ?? again - WTF???

By the way Mt arrarats height today is 16,916 ft tall with other mts. close by of somewhat the same height.

your a - Bastericktch?? what the hell is that??

I think most of the old testament is stories god wanted us to know so we could learn morals. Like not to steal:Adam and Eve. Think about the old testament reflects the ten commandments.

Yep, its all about faith that's for sure. Because none of it can actually be proven.

JB

Maybe there was bacteria in the water, alot of waves, or the translation has a flaw.

I wasn't talking to you, bean I am just trying to help tribo find some of the verses he is missing about things that upset him.
I believe in the bible. I don't believe in you! You don't seem to believe in anything. I wonder why you enjoy coming in the religion forum and irritating people who are serious.