Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus knew he built the ark and a world-wide flood destroyed everyone except the eight on the ark as did other writers of the Bible. If you say the Genesis account is wrong then you are telling me Jesus was deceived as well as other writers in the Bible. Sorry, He was not deceived. He spoke the truth on everything He taught. He is the truth.
Jesus knew he built the ark and a world-wide flood destroyed everyone except the eight on the ark as did other writers of the Bible. If you say the Genesis account is wrong then you are telling me Jesus was deceived as well as other writers in the Bible. Sorry, He was not deceived. He spoke the truth on everything He taught. He is the truth.
Yes, this is the bottom line. Jesus has more credibility than all the archeological scholars combined. He is a real historical figure. He claimed to be God's Son. He was witnessed ascending to heaven by over 500 people, and not a single person ever denounced that testimony. Believing it is up to the individual.
Taking the story given by God's Son, a person that never lied, and had perfect knowledge of events of the past, makes it perfectly logical to search for clues that give evidence to what He said has happened. It would even be more logical than having the written testimony of George Washington describing where he crossed the Potomac River, and then searching for that spot. It may be impossible to find that spot because of changes in the area, but it makes it no less a valid event.
[quote=AREQUIPA;33290358] I'm glad you seem to agree that Mars could have nothing to do with a global flood...and inspired joining of the dots is always fun, but tends to collapse under serious examination. [quote]
I guess this comment of mine flew over without touching down! That's not what I said at all.
Yes, this is the bottom line. Jesus has more credibility than all the archeological scholars combined. He is a real historical figure. He claimed to be God's Son. He was witnessed ascending to heaven by over 500 people, and not a single person ever denounced that testimony. Believing it is up to the individual.
Taking the story given by God's Son, a person that never lied, and had perfect knowledge of events of the past, makes it perfectly logical to search for clues that give evidence to what He said has happened. It would even be more logical than having the written testimony of George Washington describing where he crossed the Potomac River, and then searching for that spot. It may be impossible to find that spot because of changes in the area, but it makes it no less a valid event.
In a way, that is the bottom line. For a Christian at any rate. If you argue that Jesus knew everything and he asserted that what is in Genesis is fact, then you don't have much wiggle -room.
In a way, that is the bottom line. For a Christian at any rate. If you argue that Jesus knew everything and he asserted that what is in Genesis is fact, then you don't have much wiggle -room.
For me it isn't a problem, of course.
Exactly!!
But, I have a different take.
The entire Bible can be allegoric and the message does not change.
The problem is that some folks have not grown beyond literalism.
All religion is man made. No religion is better than any other.
The problem is that Sola Scriptura folks now believe they don't have a religion. They have the bible and hence they feel they arec superior to religion.
But, all other religions also feel they have the truth. What gives?
I say no big deal in having a belief in a creator. Once you have done done pick a religion and move on. But, understand religion is religion. It is like the difference between a German and a Frenchman. They are both proud of their heritage and nationality, but at the end they are both humans.
And Sola Scriptura is religion. And Noah's Ark is religion.
And Noah's Ark does not allow these folks to see the real face of God which is obvious to anyone that does not believe in magic.
In a way, that is the bottom line. For a Christian at any rate. If you argue that Jesus knew everything and he asserted that what is in Genesis is fact, then you don't have much wiggle -room.
For me it isn't a problem, of course.
These arguments are nonsense. If your audience knew the fable about the Tortoise and the Hare and its associated moral . . . using it as a reference does not mean you are claiming it actually happened!!! You are pointing to a principle and a moral of the story that is well known by your audience, period!
These arguments are nonsense. If your audience knew the fable about the Tortoise and the Hare and its associated moral . . . using it as a reference does not mean you are claiming it actually happened!!! You are pointing to a principle and a moral of the story that is well known by your audience, period!
For those who are able to take the Bible as a reference without claiming that it actually happened, which sounds like taking the bible as a guide to life and the afterlife without believing that it is necessarily true, then Jesus using OT stories to make a point does not mean they are necessarily true.
The implications of that are outside this thread, I think.
This is about whether the ark has been found (not that there has been much about that ) and indeed whether it could possibly be anywhere to be found and thus whether the Ark and indeed the Flood is feasible, supported by the evidence that Eusebius has done a sterling job of trying to muster and whether genesis should be taken a literal fact.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-03-2014 at 04:46 AM..
Reason: attack of the Its
The entire Bible can be allegoric and the message does not change.
The problem is that some folks have not grown beyond literalism.
All religion is man made. No religion is better than any other.
The problem is that Sola Scriptura folks now believe they don't have a religion. They have the bible and hence they feel they arec superior to religion.
But, all other religions also feel they have the truth. What gives?
I say no big deal in having a belief in a creator. Once you have done done pick a religion and move on. But, understand religion is religion. It is like the difference between a German and a Frenchman. They are both proud of their heritage and nationality, but at the end they are both humans.
And Sola Scriptura is religion. And Noah's Ark is religion.
And Noah's Ark does not allow these folks to see the real face of God which is obvious to anyone that does not believe in magic.
I am an ex-Christian, ex-theist and here is my take;
The Bible was never intended to be taken allegorically. If today it is taken that way, it hurts the credibility of the Book. It would be like taking a biology book from 200 years ago and stating that was intended to be taken allegorically -essentially fictionally- and it really is a good book. Actually it was incorrect science and nothing more. The book might have value on Ebay as a historical piece but that's it.
All religions are man-made but depending on what is meant by "better", some are in fact better than others. Some require, or at least suggest the believer to do all kinds of things; missionary trips, celibacy, etc. If "better" implies that one religion is no more valid than the other, then that is true.
Finally, I would contend that seeing the "real face of God" requires a belief in magic in the truest sense of the word, "magic" being synonyms with having a belief of something that does not conform with what we know as reality. (Your last sentence could be taken two different ways and I may have taken it the wrong way.)
Did Jesus speak of His return and use Noah as an allegory?
Heaven and earth shall be passing by, yet My words may by no means be passing by." Now, concerning
that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the
Father only. For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind. For as
they were in those days before the deluge, masticating and drinking and marrying and taking in marriage
until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, and did not know till the deluge came and takes them
all away, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind." (Mat 24:35-39)
No, of course He didn't use Noah as an allegory.
Is He going to LITERALLY return? Yes, of course He will.
If Jesus is not LITERALLY going to return, if His return just stands for something else, what "else" we are not told by the allegorists, then just maybe Noah and flood were just a cute made-up story.
Since Jesus is LITERALLY going to return, He choose a LITERAL historic event to describe what it will be like when He does return.
Jesus took the historic event of Noah, ark and flood as a literal event as did other writers in the Old and New Testament.
While I'm inclined to agree, Eusebius, that the NT references take Noah and David and his shewbread and the like OT stories as literal, it is possible to argue that Jesus may have simply been talking in terms that made sense to his audience. Remember that he also used Job and the message to the men of Nineveh as an illustration of the 'Signs' to come, and there are many would would see Job as a moral tale that didn't actually happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and indeed whether it could possibly be anywhere to be found and thus whether the Ark and indeed the Flood is feasible, supported by the evidence that Eusebius has done a sterling job of trying to muster and whether genesis should be taken a literal fact.