Noah's ark

[WhiteWings]

I agree, with you both, but still i have an unrest that we just circle around the "fact" of a glass darkly. Does that ever seem like an excuse, rather than a fact? I'm just asking.
Anyway, Noah's ark? :dsunny: Is Paul "our" last spokes person?

Nope. When Jesus went back to heaven as a bethroted man leaving His bethroded girl behind the task of the groomsman started. He carries back and forth messages and gifts between the couple. The name of Jesus' groomsman is Holy Spirit. That's the spokes person

Lets close up our studies and go back to what ever we were doing when before we read 1Co 13:12  for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;

I don't know how to exactly link those things but in the Temple there were lavers (see picture) to clean sacrifices etc. Those lavers that had bronze mirrors which gave a dim reflection.

(http://www.indianoutreach.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Temple.png)

[Tapioca]

[quote author=WhiteWings
Nope. When Jesus went back to heaven as a bethroted man leaving His bethroded girl behind the task of the groomsman started. He carries back and forth messages and gifts between the couple. The name of Jesus' groomsman is Holy Spirit. That's the spokes person
[/quote]
That is so very beautiful. :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :girlheart: :girlheart:

[marie glen]

Personally i believe it's important to accept all history in the Bible as real and literal and not fable.. otherwise perhaps the resurrection of Jesus was fable.. perhaps the very existence of Jesus was fable (that's not, of course, what I'm saying, it's what the world would like to say...

and ppl have been leaving Christendom/the faith in droves since churches have compromised on Genesis, trying to make it blend with the false prophet which began as a man - i.e Darwin's theory which has turned Christendom on its ear..

Also world wide has been found piles of bones, and fossils like washed up by a shore.. places where man thinks used to be ocean also are found, because they find evidence of sea life, and they do not take into account the flood..

Also the glaciers were world wide too, with life frozen in them, which implies very quick freezing of water.. including wooly mamaths, a land animal..

Other wise I would believe perhaps "all the land" would refer to all the land where ppl were..
      :girlheart: :hiya:

[AlbertTatlock]

I agree with Marie Glen wholeheartedly.

If the scriptures through which we learn of salvation and upon which we rely for our faith journey in this realm can be treated willy nilly - choosing this piece and 'swerving' that as it is uncomfortable to our 'scientific sensibilities'  - then we have no sure ground at all.

If the Creator say chose to get an amoeba and from that evolve all living beings (human, animal, insect) over millions of years then that would be written in Genesis. As God's word says the world was created in 7 x 24 hour days then so be it - we might not understand it but toughski on us. Let God be true and every man a liar.

If we dispute Genesis and its accounts by overlaying them with modern viewpoints then we are de facto calling God a deceiver or mistaken.

So, to the Ark - there are later spiritualised allusions to it in scripture, but it was built, stored mankind and animals (including dinosaurs) from drowning, and it must be assumed, rotted away over centuries.

Regarding the waters covering the Earth etc - it has been discovered that beneath the earth's mantle there is much more water stored than visible/measurable on the surface.

While I might sound pedantic - and I might well be a pedant - I can only avow that since I came to understand the Genesis account as historical fact and 100 percent reliable, my faith and understanding has found new depths (heights?).

We have the word of God - if we choose to neglect or dispute it, in my opinion we echo the serpent''s "Hath God said?"

[Tapioca]

I'm pedantic about Genesis, too, Albert.  :dsunny:
Well said.

[WhiteWings]

Albert, I don't agree.

Nobody, whatever his/her view, is calling God a deceiver or mistaken.  It's all about interpretation.

The Hebrew word for earth in the Flood account is the same word that tells us the plagues were in the whole land of Egypt. Egypt wasn't a global empire.

Some read the flood water rose immensely high and covered the highest mountain on earth by a few feet. Others read it as the water rose a few feet and covered the mountains which were merely small hills as we see on the plain Noach lived. Mount Olives isn't a huge mountain. So when we read mountain we must never assume anything like the Rocky Mountains or Mount Everest.

The Hebrew word for day can also mean a time period.

So God left a lot of room for interpretation?
Some may say that God is very clear about what He wants to say and 7 days simply means 7x24 hours. Could be but the same people often also say things like: "Wow, look what I found when studying the Bible this weekend. HS unlocked this beautiful gem to me!!!!"
Obviously, that's great, but then I wonder why it took them so long, why it needed study and help from HS to see something new in a passage they must have read many times in the last 20 years. To me that shows that God Word isn't merely about shallow reading.

:Peace2:

[AlbertTatlock]

When in Genesis it says "the evening and the morning were the first day" I think we ought to accept that it means what it says - it's curious how it's only in respect of the 7 days of Creation that the actual length of days is in dispute.

If God did not mean a 24 hour day then what are we to make of the Sabbath injunction to keep that single day holy?  There's a lack of congruity there.

It is a difficult stretch logically to compare the use of 'day' in Genesis with some other usage somewhere else in scripture - written by a different author at a different time and with a different purpose.

However, that said, each to his/her own - if you want to accept the scriptures as they are written or if you prefer a more comfortable or contemporary understanding is one's own choice. For me, I prefer God's word over man's opinions but chacun a son gout :)

[Seth]

If God did not mean a 24 hour day then what are we to make of the Sabbath injunction to keep that single day holy?  There's a lack of congruity there

Hi Albert,

If you look at Genesis the sun was created on the fourth day. So whatever light appeared on the first day was not the sun. The sun and moon were given for man to measure days months and years. So to me, it's perfectly in line with a plain reading of Genesis that a day was not 24 hours.

I see the sabbath day as simply a way to remember. You could mark out one 24 hour period to observe something that happened in a year and according to the Hebrew meaning of "yom" you would be keeping day to remember a day.

[eaglesway]

I believe the ark was as literal as the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as did Peter, one of the twelve foundation stones of the new Jerusalem.
1 Peter 3:20,21

[Tapioca]

I believe the ark was as literal as the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as did Peter, one of the twelve foundation stones of the new Jerusalem.
1 Peter 3:20,21

:iagree:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I think the first 5 books ESPECIALLY, have been proven by computer science (Bible codes) to be flawless, else the codes wouldn't work. So even if I didn't accept them as valid at face value, something like that would certainly move me in that direction. My  :2c:

[micah7:9]

Might as well put my query's here. And I am only giving thoughts with wonderings, I have no IMO.

Wonderings, questions no more. My thoughts maybe handled better by Ronen and WW Tony(?) they seem to be more knowledgeable with Hebrew history in the Hebrew that most. I just wonder.

Eve is the first woman and by Adam named her and called her the mother of all living. There are no more female names until Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, mentioned (that I read) until Sarai Gen. 12:5 I have no idea if there is any significance.

Then when we read of Noah in Gen.7- Noah Gen 7:13  In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
In the record there is no identification, by name of Noah's wife, or the names of  Shem, Ham, or  Japheth wives. I just wonder why?

I have always been told that the female was quite insignificant....still we have Eve...significant, Sarai...significant.... why are not the names of the mothers who began life after the flood of no so significance?
Are they of no importance? I mean we find the Lord destroying life as it is known and He finds that Noah and his three sons are important, we find the generic tree from these three males with names important, we find that Eve is the mother of all living and later we see that Sarai will become Sarah..a noble person, head person. Yet Noah's wife, and his three sons wives are not even given names, considering the fact those three women would be the mothers of a new world. I just wonder. 

Also, Gen 6:6  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 
Gen 6:7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
And when the waters subside and all is started a new, we come to find out  "...the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." 
Yet the same human lifestyle starts over again, like the flood did not matter anyway to what man was going to do and be. There was a bow (a covenant ?) to signify that things will continue just as it was?
Maybe I missed something.  Please, I'm looking for help. :Pray:
And ain't it amusing that should the flood have been world wide [as it it is supposed], when the Ark rests, it's in the very same area it started from?  I lean towards the thought of a local flood. :sigh: :HeartThrob: :dsunny:

[anti_nietzsche]

I think the account of the flood is a local tale of the jews, or rather, of people living in the Middle East at that time. I think there was a spirit flood of some kind that elevated man to a new level with the establishment of courts and the development of the idea of justice. Much like the Eden story, the account of Noah must be the account of a tribe of humans that worshiped God and stood against things in the world as it was at that time. Idolatry, violence especially, adultery probably, too much fornication too... theft, lot's of crimes really. And Noah and his party built something like an organization called the ark, and called themselves after animals, and came into the ark in pairs. Someone called Raven, someone called Dove, someone called Cow, someone called Pig, etc. And while the spirit flood was active, there was a time of turmoil. So Noah and his ark tribe went to the area of Ararat and lived there, and after a year they sent out the Raven and the Dove. The Dove found other humans and brought back an olive twig as a sign of peace. Big Party, mission accomplished.

The literal reading of the Noah account has too many difficulties. A global flood reaching Mt Everest would be so vast that the Earth's ecosystem could have hardly recovered, the weather would have been disturbed for many thousand years. The water in the ocean wouldn't be able to sustain any fish because of lack of salt in the water from all the dilution from the rain. And the water would have to go somewhere, but it isn't here anymore. The Ark story could have also not taken into account the many animals  that exist in the world, they could have never fitted into the ark boat together with the food and all. And what about tigers and wolves that need fresh meat?

Plus it's too blunt a method for God to fight against evil in the world. I mean, God can't simply destroy the world if humans are bad. That's not what a God of love would do. Jesus shows us what the God of love does ... sacrificing Himself and rising from the dead and renewing the face of the Earth.

That is all the trouble with biblical inerrancy. The bible is sacred and one of our best guides to things of God, but in the same time the information we get is rather obscure sometimes. It's not a book that fell from the sky, it's not codified textbook. Instead it's a collection of stories, and for example Genesis is thought of as a collection of jewish stories and songs that they handed down through many generations before they were finally written down.

[eaglesway]

Earths eco system was created by God. God can sustain anything He desires to effect since "all things hold together by the word of His power".

Why does the proton not spin off the nucleus?

What is gravity?

"All things hold together by the word of His power".
"By faith we know that the worlds were framed by the word of God".


In my opinion the problem with biblical inerrancy is that people believe their understanding of the bible is inerrant. They really don't know what it is, a collection of oracles, "God-breathed" through "holy men moved by the Spirit of God"- not  a bunch of threads from which to spin systematic theologies, or letters with which to build a box through which they can quantify God and define Him, which really just to make Him after their own image.

The word of God is inerrant, from the perspective that it is God breathed- or it is nothing but a fairy tale that should not be given the regard of the term, "the Word of God", or the "scriptures".

If one does not believe that, they do not understand in the slightest, what the collected writings of the "bible" are, or what they represent.

However, one can believe all that and STILL not have the slightest understanding of what an oracle is, and what makes the word alive, quickened, and good for the teaching of the doctrines that pertain to godliness and the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is why Jesus said, "Wide is the way that leads to death, and many are on it. Narrow is the path that leads to life and few their be that find it"- which has been taught as a message of heaven and hell, but is really Jesus' way of telling the seeker that every path that looks like it leads to life because it has His name stamped all over it doesnt necessarily lead to Him, or the freedom and joy of life that is hidden in WHO HE IS, and a relationship with Him.

[Cardinal]

In my opinion the problem with biblical inerrancy is that people believe their understanding of the bible is inerrant. They really don't know what it is, a collection of oracles, "God-breathed" through "holy men moved by the Spirit of God"- not  a bunch of threads from which to spin systematic theologies, or letters with which to build a box through which they can quantify God and define Him, which really just to make Him after their own image.

The word of God is inerrant, from the perspective that it is God breathed- or it is nothing but a fairy tale that should not be given the regard of the term, "the Word of God", or the "scriptures".

:cloud9: Amen  :iagree:

[micah7:9]

Let it be known that this OP had nothing to do with the movie that's coming out now nor any movie about the Ark previously. :dsunny:

[anti_nietzsche]

I also read the bible in a more mystical way than taking it as something plain. The other thing is, in our day people try to rationalize, to gather information and to expect things to be reliable. In a way we are all academics now, thinking of the past itself as a thing of the past. I'm not sure I can express it right, but it's like we're always on a sightseeing trip, on a thrill ride, taking a vacation while taking our modern life with us always. But the real past is a story of blood and tears and sweat mostly. We don't quite know what it was like to live in ancient Israel, for example. The bible rarely tells stories of a happy time. There was always trouble and more trouble. Did the ancients have spring festivals, did they hang out in the sun after the work, drinking a beer and swapping stories? I know from my own childhood (I'm 35), that after work my parents used to sit together on the porch and talk into the night. There was much gossip, but not about politics or celebrities, but about affairs of the village, of the neighborhood, of family and friends. I'm not sure what kind of social life the Israelites had. If they actually knew much joy and peace. It's hard to ascertain nowadays. For example, we know that the psalms were originally songs and pieces for harp and flute and voice. David was more of a bard than how we imagine a king. Which medieval king sang songs himself? I know of none. The bible is a deep book, but for me it is mostly a book of stories and thoughts and some chronicles. It is a book of memories, the testament of forefathers. It is a sacred text because God can work on us while we read it. It is special. But exactly this should make us think twice of using the bible like any other book. We expect a book of maths to be 100% true in all of its statements. Perhaps the bible cannot be read like this precisely because it is a true book. We don't know its authors, their pains and problems, their own thoughts. Saul came and anointed David. What were the thoughts of Saul? Why were the hebrews so sparse in their descriptions? The scriptures are important, but it is precisely because they are so important, that they are giving us more problems than answers, that they cause fear for us rather than comfort.

[ed]

I also read the bible in a more mystical way than taking it as something plain............................................................The scriptures are important, but it is precisely because they are so important, that they are giving us more problems than answers, that they cause fear for us rather than comfort.

:iagree:

I've always used the Bible for comfort.  I choose the verses that speak to me and my particular need, and memorize them.  The ones that do not bring peace I  work on as time is available.  I'm sure I'll never get it all.  I'm happy to try to understand the half of it.

.

[WhiteWings]

The danger of just picking the easy verses you like is that you build  your own doctrine. I agree that very few, if any, person will fully understand the Bible, but the difficult/non comforting verses are there for a reason. Plus if you are able to unlock a few hard verses you may notice you unlocked much more.
:2c:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: That is so true. If you find hidden manna in one, it ALWAYS reveals itself in other scriptures.

There are unbroken "threads" of His garment running from Genesis to Revelation of every principle imaginable; we have only to discover what the Master weaver wove, to see another piece of His flawless seamless (without beginning or end, without father or mother) robe.

We are a royal priesthood, a peculiar (chosen) nation, being clothed with righteousness and wisdom from above. :banana: He is awesome and worthy to be praised. And praise Him in the midst of the terrible storms of my life I do, for without it I would be swept away.  Blessings...

[Jock]

Just a piece I noted about the movie, Noah. Apparently there have been a lot of adverse reactions to it.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Noah-bible-movie/2014/03/31/id/562887/

[ed]

The danger of just picking the easy verses you like is that you build  your own doctrine. I agree that very few, if any, person will fully understand the Bible, but the difficult/non comforting verses are there for a reason. Plus if you are able to unlock a few hard verses you may notice you unlocked much more.
:2c:

Been down that road more then once following sectarians.

You learn to spot them and stick to the simple stuff.

My bliss I guess.

:dsunny:

[bushy]

Some read the flood water rose immensely high and covered the highest mountain on earth by a few feet. Others read it as the water rose a few feet and covered the mountains which were merely small hills as we see on the plain Noach lived. Mount Olives isn't a huge mountain. So when we read mountain we must never assume anything like the Rocky Mountains or Mount Everest.

 

:Peace2:

5He established the earth upon its foundations,
            So that it will not totter forever and ever.

      6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
            The waters were standing above the mountains.

      7At Your rebuke they fled,
            At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.

      8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
            To the place which You established for them.

      9You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
            So that they will not return to cover the earth.


Just to add my  :2c: to this, I came across this Psalm 104 this morning. I think the flood was world wide and the mountains rose after the flood and the water is in the oceans today.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I can totally see this. The Lord told me the tsunami that happened was as a result of the displacement weight of water from the ice caps melting. How much more would have happened to the surface of the earth if ALL this water appeared over 40 days? Blessings....

[micah7:9]

I tried to rebut the latest, but quit.....I still wonder :dsunny: