Why do we need salvation?

mcgyver wrote,

Did you really read everything that you could get your hands on regarding evolution, or did you read only what you wanted to read? The University where I was a research biologist has many thousands of bound volumes on evolution in its library, and tens of thousands of journal articles on evolution. Many more thousands of volumes are available through inter-library loan programs. And this university library, and most other university libraries, can be accessed by the public.

If you had really read all of these thousands of volumes written by real scientists, you would have come to one conclusion . . . . Namely, that Genesis 6 – 8 can not possibly be a literal account of an historic event.

Any one who is even remotely familiar with the biological sciences knows for an absolute fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis 6 – 8 doesn’t make anymore sense than Bringham Young’s teaching that the men that inhabit the moon dress something like the Quakers. And any one who is familiar with “the data streaming in from the latest scientific research” knows for a fact that the data almost uniformly supports the theory of evolution and that now even creation “scientists” acknowledge that fact and ague that we must pay closer attention to the “anomalous” data that they claim could be interpreted differently.

 

mcgyver wrote,

If Genesis 1 – 11, as interpreted by Christian fundamentalist extremists, is “the foundation of the very Gospel itself,” we have a Gospel built on a wet cardboard box. But of course the truth is that the foundation of the Gospel is not the interpretation of some men and women of the first eleven chapter of Genesis—the foundation of the Gospel is the word of God.

That the interpretation of Gen. 6 – 8 by Christian fundamentalist extremists is analogous to a wet cardboard box is proved by the following facts:

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• After the flood, the animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few insurmountable difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any objective man or woman can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

...with God all things are possible.

KJV Genesis 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark:...

HankD

 

With man all misunderstandings are possible. Craig thinks that the pre-flood world was the same as this world and there was a mountain called Everest that had to be covered with water.

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying there was no Mt. Everest (or other tall mountains) 5,000 years ago?

 

Let me ask this Craig: As a research biologist, what is the probability/possiblity of a 33 year old man who has been scourged to the point exposing the underlying musclature, who has suffered massive blood loss, who has been nailed to a cross for 6 hours, who has been stabbed in the side by a Roman spear, who was then wrapped mummy-like and laid in a sealed tomb.....What is the probability (speaking as a research biologist) that this man three days later would move a large stone from the inside, overcome a guard of Roman soldiers, and then later that afternoon take a seven mile walk to Emmaus?

Next question: If you don't deny a miracle in this case......What indescribably hugh miracle is too difficult for God?

 

Mcgyver wrote,

Did you not read the last paragraph in the post that you quoted?

But to answer your question, there are very MANY things that God can NOT do. Here are a few examples:

• God can not sin.

• God can not cease to exist.

• God can not contradict Himself.

• God can not squeeze a gallon of water into a one ounce bottle.

 

Mike G. wrote,

This could not possibly be more false. All scientists agree that Mt. Everest shows signs of erosion that took place over millions of years. Creationists acknowledge this but claim that God created Mt. Everest to look this way. And if God created Mt. Everest to look as it does, it was obviously there both before and after the flood.

This is not flood geology, it is utter nonsense.

God, of course, did not create an imperfect world by His standards. Perhaps Mike believes that his standards are higher and more relevant than God’s standards . And we all know that the dinosaurs died long before Adam sinned and that the ants and cockroaches that Adam stepped on before he sinned were squashed to death (in other words—they died. And of course the Bible clearly tells us that God gave Adam plants to eat, and that when you eat a plant, it dies (unless you believe that all those plants were still alive in Adam’s stomach when he ate the forbidden fruit .

Come on, people, let’s be good stewards of the common sense that God gave to us!

 

Brother Craig...

In the aforementioned post you gave a series of reasons as to why Genesis 1-11 could not be literally true.

These reasons are based on speculation, not on proof. We were not living at the time, so our understanding of the way things work now does not necessarily mean they worked in the same way then.

Additionally, by your post I must assume that you believe that God would not work certain miracles in the context of His work (if I am mistaken in this assumption, please point out where...).

And you still have not answered my question inre the resurrection.

P.S. It is by supernatural means that God preserved Noah and his family, as well as the animals....It would have to be supernatural, as you pointed out in your previous post...it couldn't happen naturally.......Besides, the scripture says God closed the door of the ark.

Be back about 7:30 to continue...(Meetings, aargh)

 

These are not speculations, but known facts. Your interpretation of Gen. 6 – 8, however, is based exclusively upon speculation.

You are totally mistaken in your assumption. The point is that interjecting miracles into Gen. 6 – 8 requires a severe alteration of the plain and obvious meaning of the text when interpreted literally.

The Gospels make it expressly clear that God miraculously raised Jesus from the dead. Where in Genesis 6 - 8, reading it literally, do you find God working any miracles?

I find a wee bit of difference between God closing the door of the Ark and God doing the likes of which we find no where in the Bible.

 

Mike G. wrote,

What Watchtower magazine did you get this out of? Personally, I avoid the Kingdom Halls like I do the plague.

This is mere speculation. The IMPOSSIBILITY of the story of Noah’s Ark being a literal account of an historic event, however, is not speculation—it is proven fact!

I don’t believe that any human being knows the answer to such a philosophical question. And of course such a question is totally irrelevant to the doctrine of salvation (isn’t that what this thread is supposed to be about?)

 

Where in Genesis does it say that God closed the door of the Ark or that doing so was a miracle? Even my three-year-old grandson can close the door on a boat.

 

Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. (KJV)

And this is your proof that we are to interpret Gen. 6 - 8 as a miracle narrative rather than an historical narrative?

 

Of course I consider the Bible to be literature, don't you?