Noah's Ark - Literal or what?

[Mercury]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Technially speaking, from a scientific perspective, Science has as much evidence against the resurrection as they do against any other biblical miracle. People die ever day around the world, and none that are dead for three days are resurrected. Science, even today, would tell you that you can't be dead for three days and come back to life.

Indeed. This means that if Jesus rose from the dead, it must be a miracle. If science had shown the opposite -- that a person could quite easily rise from the dead -- it would be this that would falsify the resurrection miracle, because it would lower that occurrence to nothing more than a cheap trick. Jesus' divinity rests (at least partially) on the fact that he defeated death in a way that was naturally impossible. We should thank God that science has continued to show us the miraculous nature of what he did!

Now, the problem with other miracles that are brought up is not that they are impossible according to science, but that they don't leave the traces one would expect to see. If someone claimed that their grandfather rose from the dead, but it was still possible to dig up his dead body, this would lead me to doubt that a miracle actually occurred. If someone claimed to miraculously feed a thousand people, and then to miraculously make them hungry again before someone else could check the claim, I'd be skeptical that the two miracles actually occurred. Any time the sum effect of multiple miracles is to make things look as if no miracle occurred, I'm skeptical. (For Jesus' miracles, we have no surviving physical evidence either for or against, and we do have testimony that they occurred, so I see no reason to doubt them.)

I have the same skepticism toward those who try to add miracles to the Genesis accounts, such as having God miraculously provide a bunch of water for the flood and then miraculously remove it, or miraculously sorting all the fossils in a way that matches common descent, or miraculously placing radioactive elements in rocks so that they consistently reveal a far older age than reality. I doubt those miracles because they seem capricious and are only hypothesized to try to line up reality with a certain interpretation of the Bible.

I grew up being told that there was no way the red-sea could have parted. Then when I was in high school they went, "Oh my gosh. There was a comet that passed so close to earth that its tail would have disrupted the seas, and may very well have caused the parting of the red sea." Did Science say, "Yes! Proof of the accuracy of God's word?" Of course not. They said, "Well, yeah, it probably happened, but its not a miracle. Its "just" a comet." Excuse? JUST a comet at JUST the right moment is NOT a miracle?

I agree with you about this principle, whether or not it holds true as an explanation for this particular miracle. God can use natural means to accomplish miraculous results, because God is sovereign over nature.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by chadman:
I would personally love nothing more than someone to find and validate Noah's Ark with real proof.

However, having grown up reading Chick publications (tracts and magazines) like encyclopedias, my world was rocked when I started checking facts out. I found, people can and will write anything they please for their own purposes. And many more will believe whatever they read.

Hi there Chad,

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[rsr]

I view with skepticism attempts to prove the Bible by archeology. Our understanding of such things is so clouded that there is not likely to be a conclusive answer. Christianity is, in the end, a matter of faith. If we think we can find concrete validation of the faith in archeology, then we are mistaken. There may be things that strengthen a case for historicity, but they cannot prove it. (This is not to dispute archeology, but to state its limitations.)

In addition, artifacts, given our fallen nature and sentimentlity, are subject to deification. I do not believe that pieces of the true cross exist, nor that the cup of the Last Supper is something worth pursuing. God knows better than to leave such things lying around.

God knows us and knows our weaknesses. Do we know exactly where Christ was born? Where He died? Where He was crucified?

There are guesses, some better than others.

But it makes no difference to me. God is not bound by geography or archeology, and it makes no difference to me if the ark is ever found, other than I do not like being embarrassed those who repeat unverified tales (repeated over and over on the Internet, as if that is proof) as if they were the Gospel.

 

[TexasSky]

RSR -

One of the former Presidents of Southwestern Theological Seminary used to teach his own students, "Never be afraid to seek the truth in regards to Christ - whether it regards historical evidence, time lines, geneologies, or science. God IS the truth. While He may not reveal Himself in the evidence of the world, He IS the truth, and eventually, the evidence of the world always confirms that God is God."

He went on to say that those who "avoid" any discussions of such things because they don't have the answers need to ask themselves what they are really afraid of.

You just stated you don't want to be embarrassed by unverified claims. Unfortunately, that attitude had allowed athiests and flat-out-liars to change the attitude of the world about the bible from "Respectfully reverence as a great historical document, even if they did not believe it was a holy book," to treating it like a bad joke.

The fact is - no other ancient historical document has been verified as often by other historical documents or by physical evidence as the Bible.

But today - the bible is the "laughing stock" of the majority of the world because Christians would rather "avoid it." OR because Christians do NOT stand up for it.

I've worked in acadamia long enough to understand that often the "facts taught in a class" are the personal opinions of the professors teaching the class, and that when facts - REAL facts - contradict their points of views - MANY professors are NOT so "morale" that they offer both sides and let you decide. They just present the side that supports them.

Just like the study of Noah's Ark.

There are many people, respected scholars, all over the world that say, "Yes, there is a huge man-made object on a mountain in Turkey, that appears to be made of wood, and that could be the boat referred to in the Hebrew texts."

Yet - people who do not WANT to believe this mock it and ridicule it and try to discredit the men who speak.

And the Christian community buries their head in the sands so the world won't laugh at us personally.

What happens if, like with the discovery of the Nazareth Stone - it turns out they are RIGHT? Do you REALLY expect a secular world to ADMIT they found Noah's Ark?

 

[TexasSky]

Joseph,

I do like YOUR question.

 

[Gup20]

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

Great point.


2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Two parts of this verse stick out to me - i have bolden them. First, we see from verses 5 & 6 that Peter saw the flood as literal and left absolutely no doubt as to whether or not it happened.

But secondly, he speaks in the 2nd verse of Peter 3 about the very question that we have today - Did it really happen, and does the answer effect your faith.

Look at another passage:

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

We all know this story. The guy is in hell and asks abraham to send someone back to warn his family. Abraham tells him "They have Moses (didn't he write Genesis, BTW?) and the prophets" and the man responds... "no only if someone comes back from the dead to tell them. Abraham responds that they wouldn't believe even if someone came back from the dead to tell them.

 

[BobRyan]

Double post

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by rsr:
I view with skepticism attempts to prove the Bible by archeology. Our understanding of such things is so clouded that there is not likely to be a conclusive answer.

That is too bad. It seems to me that Archaeology has always been the friend of the Bible.

When skeptics have challenged the Bible with the "negetive assertion" Archaeology contributes by "Discovering the positive" in favor of scripture.

#1. Writing at the time of Moses
#2. The cities of the plains destroyed by fire.
#3. The world wide flood
#4. The kings of the Bible

No sense in letting the atheists out of the embarrassing facts of history and 'discovery'.

Remember the myths of junk-science and atheist survive only in the void where emperical evidence is lacking.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[mud]

Hi Chad, everybody,

I believe that the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is an accurate account of actual events. From its first mention in Genesis to its last mention in the New Testament, Scripture regards the man, the boat, and the flood (not to mention the creation account itself) as actual history. I think that should settle it for us. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine . . .” (2Ti 3:16) including the first eleven chapters of Genesis!

If the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus himself were mistaken to regard these as literal and historical how can we trust them about anything else? If he has told us via scripture of things natural, observable, tangible and got it wrong, should we really trust him with things spiritual, invisible, hoped for? Jesus himself said "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

As to archaeological evidence, I am doubtful as to the claims that Noah’s Ark has been located. But what is plain to me is that we live in a world starkly marked everywhere by evidences of water erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediment on a scale that boggles the mind to consider. Is this not what we should expect to find if God flooded the whole earth in divine judgement?

Surely we err greatly to judge or compromise God’s holy word based on the theorising and conclusions of fallen, ignorant men derived from their observations of a sin cursed world.

 

[BobRyan]

Well said!

 

[just-want-peace]

Yeah, what mud said!

To add, I have my doubts that the ark remains will ever be found AND verified simply because the ark remains themselves will undoubetedly become icons of worship just as "the shroud of turin" appears to be.

I can believe that the remains in Turkey are the actual remains, but prior to the rapture will not be verified as such! Just MHO!

MARANATHA!!

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chadman:
I would personally love nothing more than someone to find and validate Noah's Ark with real proof.

However, having grown up reading Chick publications (tracts and magazines) like encyclopedias, my world was rocked when I started checking facts out. I found, people can and will write anything they please for their own purposes. And many more will believe whatever they read.

Hi there Chad,

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. John Morris wrote about this.

Would the Discovery of Noah's Ark do any Good?

 

[chadman]

Quoted by TexasSky:

Chad,

Be careful please. You discounted my comparison of miracles by saying that we don't have evidence that refutes the resurrection. Technially speaking, from a scientific perspective, Science has as much evidence against the resurrection as they do against any other biblical miracle. People die ever day around the world, and none that are dead for three days are resurrected. Science, even today, would tell you that you can't be dead for three days and come back to life. Science today would and does, dismiss Christ because He doesn't fit their belief system.

Do you believe the burning bush? Remember that? It burned, but it wasn't consumed? That pretty much violates any scientific evidence, but I believe it is true.

I posted several links to various sites supporting the belief that the Ark was found. I saw a Discovery Channel show recently that says they have those Chariot Wheels that you say Wyatt didn't find. Your evidence against the Ark of the Covenent is "probably" and "they would have," - in other words, your evidence against Wyatt is "theory" not fact. Yet, you cling to it like it was fact.

As some one else pointed out - the evidence that we DO have about the Bible SUPPORTS it. Why shouldn't we trust it?

Most of my life there were rumors that Nazareth wasn't real. Then they discovered a city marker, on a fishing village, right where they expected biblical Nazareth to be.

For decades the nay-sayers used to hit me with, "How can you be so intelligent and believe the bible? The thing wasn't even written until several hundred years after it supposedly happened." Then they learned that some of the manuscripts for the bible are dated in the first century AD.

I grew up being told that there was no way the red-sea could have parted. Then when I was in high school they went, "Oh my gosh. There was a comet that passed so close to earth that its tail would have disrupted the seas, and may very well have caused the parting of the red sea." Did Science say, "Yes! Proof of the accuracy of God's word?" Of course not. They said, "Well, yeah, it probably happened, but its not a miracle. Its "just" a comet." Excuse? JUST a comet at JUST the right moment is NOT a miracle?

If you put your faith in Science, above your faith in God, you'll be terribly disappointed. Faith in God REQUIRES faith in God's word. The two go hand in hand.

As Dr. Ralph Smith used to say, "How can you accept the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, and NOT accept the other miracles of the bible? How can you pick and choose what part of the bible to believe and really believe any of it?"

Ok, Texas, that is a wonderful post bro. I am NOT going to diss you on this post. You have some great thoughts and ideas, and your sincerity gives me weak knees frankly. My first impression is to hug you and be glad God is a mighty God.

I have not had time to read all the responses, but let me tell you this one thing. Most that post here, just have an agenda. I DON'T. I frankly don't give a heck about Baptist or JW, SDA, Catholic or Orthodox. But I am Baptist for the record.

I am just after sound reasoning and truth. If my brothers exibit one or the other, I will concur, but for heavens sake, if my brothers and sisters exhibit anything else, then I am on the carpet first, askking questions.

I hope to read all these responses, and give an adequate response myself.

 

[chadman]

Posted by J. Botnewick

Hi there Chad,

Let's say for a second that someone were to find Noah's Ark tommorow-hypothetically speaking. How would that discovery effect your faith in God or the Bible, or your understanding of what God's will for you is? What if nobody ever found any of these things? Would that take away from your faith in God or the Bible?

Joseph...after reading your question...I am ...questioning my faith. Not!

I belive in the Roman Road, John 3:16, etc, etc, so answer the questions bro! Quit making it an invitation.

Joseph Botwinick

Ahhh, here come the absolutely INEVITABLE internal religious questions that ignore sound reasoning. ***Based*** on somones CLAIM that they have found an ARCHEOLOGICAL ARTIFACT.

Let's see Joseph, hard to answer your question. I would only question at the moment, my INTERPRETATION of the Bible NOT the spiritual truth of the Bible. If I only have faith in Science, I discard the Bible and Jesus completely. Right?

Prove the ressurection. Jesus is either in your heart or not. If you don't believe this, as DHK says, you are lost and in need of salvation. I hope you belive in Jesus Joseph.

In the meantime, like John McEnroe said once, "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" lol.

Somebody TODAY says they have conclusively found Noah's Ark. SHOW ME. We don't need faith today if you have evidence that you have THE ARK. You just need to show conclusively with Objective Christian concurrence that such is the case. Then we can actually start the debate with the lost world and their scientists.

I am saved, brother, the whole Roman Road, John 3:16, etc, etc, don't trouble yourself in my case. I believe blindly. Just not modern claims of artifacts. That is not in the Bible, I don't have to believe that stuff. If you say now today, "I found Noah's Ark", Hmmmm...Show me.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Hi Chad,

I think you might have misunderstood my point. So, please allow me to clarify. My faith is not based on archeologists finding Noah's Ark, or scientists proving or disproving anything in the Bible to be true. My faith is based on the Word of God. Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it. If archeologists never found Noah's Ark, I would still, by faith, trust in the Word of God.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Gup20]

If I only have faith in Science, I discard the Bible and Jesus completely. Right?

I believe blindly.

First of all, it is a myth perpetrated by secular humanism that the Bible and Science are mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, complimentary when both are accepted for their limitations.

See www.answersingenesis.com

Secondly, I don't know that we are to 'believe blindly'. Faith is perfected with corresponding action - and you must have some understanding to take action.

Moreover, 1Peter tells us to always be able to give a reason for the hope that is within us.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it.

Science, by it's definition, is the observation of the visible evidence. Faith, by it's definition is the evidence of the invisible. It should be mentioned, however, that one is not mutually exclusive of the other. In fact, if you look at a lot of the 'founders of modern science', such as Newton, Pascal, (almost all scientists before the age of Darwin) - even more recent scientists such as Albert Einstein - they attributed the ability to observe order in the universe as a direct result of it's having been created by God. They felt that God would do things in an orderly and observable manner which could be studied. Moreover we see the commission for science implied in Genesis:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

In fact many of the early founders of the modern scientific age directly quoted these scriptures as reasons for their scientific endevours. So science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive, but rather they are complimentary.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

1. Scientist and Faith are not mutually exclusive. One can be a Scientist and a Christian at the same time. But, this is only true if you keep science seperate from faith. Yes, many early scientists, and even many modern day scientists are Christians. But no, I have seen no indication that any of them have observed the creation story, or any Biblical account of faith, under a microscope and come to scientific conclusions. That is because faith deals with the unobservable.

2. Further, I think there is a danger to trying to force science on faith. Once one does that, people tend to focus on the evidence rather than the faith. Just look at the reaction to the supposed Marian Apparitions. The so called science of faith becomes an idol.

3. Science and faith are not for or against each other. They are neutral. Science can make theories and conclusions (which change all the time, BTW) based on what they can see. They cannot make valid conclusions about faith as they cannot take into account the variables of the miraculous and God, since that cannot be seen. Finally, Faith, unlike science, does not change. It is absolute.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[BobRyan]

Humanism and Gospel-based Christianity are two philosphical systems - two "World views" that both make "appeals to science".

Humanism makes a religion of those "Appeals" called "Evolutionism" in order to give plausible deniability to the underlying fact that it is a pure faith-based system!

Christianity does not need to go to such extremes because it is upfront with its claims to being "faith based".

The comments about "Science or Christianity" simply do not convey the truth about this more basic and obvious partnership.

BOTH of these philisophical systems appeal to science so NEITHER of them wants to present itself as "opposed to science". Science (when differentiated from that corrupted system of junk-science known as evolutionism) is neutral. It simply "finds things" and it conducts experiments that CAN be verified and repeated. It discovers rules and relationships.

But it does not "see history" like a video tape. If it did all crimes would be solved.

How one interprets the data and places value on one artifact over another - is determined to some degree by the bias - the world view of the person.

Hence the debacle of Simpson's horse series foisted onto the unsuspecting public "AS IF" science had actually FOUND and confirmed the smooth transitions in layer after layer for horse evolution as presented.

In fact - it was simply shoddy guesswork with sequences "glued" together based on the bias and preference of the faith-based system we know today as "evolutionism".

Even Evolutionists (usually atheist ones) will now admit that. Even some Christian evolutionists are slowly coaxing themselves to admit to the facts on this one as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mud]

"Finally, Faith, unlike science, does not change. It is absolute.”

Not to be a hair splitter, Joseph, but it is not faith that is absolute but rather the Object of our faith. Some have little faith. Some have great faith. Others have no faith. Sadly some lose faith. Thank God we can pray, as did the apostles, “Increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5). In fact we are admonished to add to our faith (2Pe 1:5-7).

So faith is variable, but our God is a Rock , “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17).

Cheers

 

[chadman]

Posted by Joseph B.:

Hi Chad,

I think you might have misunderstood my point. So, please allow me to clarify. My faith is not based on archeologists finding Noah's Ark, or scientists proving or disproving anything in the Bible to be true. My faith is based on the Word of God. Science cannot prove faith. Neither can it disprove it. If archeologists never found Noah's Ark, I would still, by faith, trust in the Word of God.

Joseph Botwinick

My appologies. I don't really get your point on this particular thread. You want to talk faith in Jesus. I want to talk archeological findings of modern times.

Lets hook up on a theology thread sometime, perhaps that would add some cohesion to our conversation?