Noah

randyvs
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Ah! Now you're going deep into Randy.
If I told you, you would only critisize as you have done
most fervantly thru out.

This is where the pearls to swine must be considered
altho be it. I really don't consider you to be swine.
A bit misguided perhaps by the present world but the
world changes. As you have noticed. And will change again
shortly in the respects of time. All your knowledge is very
frail shot. I believe the amnesia we have as a species accounts
big time for a world wide cataclysm. Just like the Bible describes.

Wonderful, all that text and none of it actually answers my question.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Life literally started and evolved thanks to the moon. The idea that it appeared in our skies several millenia ago is completely wrong.

its funny though

Creationists will reach for absolutely anything to show their book to be true

but that was one of my new favorite ideas

LOL

FlyersFan
reply to post by randyvs

 

Address the math about the population.
Where'd all the people come from today?
If Noahs Ark happened, we shouldn't be here.

10% growth rate averages double population in less then 7 years.

8
16 - 7 years
32 - 14 years
64 - 21 years
128 - 28 years
256 - 35 years
512 - 42 years
1024 - 49 years
2048 - 56 years
4096 - 63 years
8192 - 70 years
16384 - 77 years
32768 - 84 years
65536 - 91 years
131072 - 98 years
262144 - 105 years
524288 - 112 years

Babel erected 114 years after the flood. There could have been 500,000 people already alive at that time with a 10% growth rate if my math is correct.

God Bless,

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Wonderful, all that text and none of it actually answers my question.

Oh! So it wasn't clear Im not going to answer you?
You must understand that for me, is a very personal question.

ElohimJD
Babel erected 114 years after the flood. There could have been 500,000 people already alive at that time with a 10% growth rate if my math is correct.

Your math is not correct.

3 pair of reproducing humans. First off ... the inbreeding of 3 pair of RELATED reproducing humans would have killed off the offspring quickly. All those first cousins inbreeding would = lots of dead offspring. Lots of diseased offspring. Lots of defects. and back then, defects would mean you couldn't survive.

3 pair of reproducing humans would NOT become half a million people in a hundred years.

IF the children of those reproducing humans lived ... and that's a big IF considering that they were inbreeding, there wasn't any food, no medicine, deaths in childbirths, deaths from diseases, deaths from simple infections, etc .... it's more like you'd have a few dozen people on the planet.

Oh .. and there was no such thing as the Tower of Babel. That's a myth primitive people invented to try to explain the differences in language. And there wouldn't have been enough people on the planet to start building cities 115 years after the flood anyways. It doesn't fit. Obviously it's yet another peasant-myth.

FlyersFan
... and the Old Testament myths are NOT the word of God.
They are just myths and folklore. NOT from God at all.
A real Christian can understand that truth AND be a Christian.
The two are mutually exclusive.

So when Peter talks about Noah living by faith, and recalls the story of Noah to New Testament disciples (Hebrews 11), is that story not from God too?

Why did Jesus Christ himself keep the Old Testament laws while living a perfect life as an example to "true Christians" if those actions are "not at all from God"?

God Bless,

ElohimJD
So when Peter talks about Noah living by faith, and recalls the story of Noah to New Testament disciples (Hebrews 11), is that story not from God too?

Peter was speaking from his own beliefs. That was from PETER.

Why did Jesus Christ himself keep the Old Testament laws while living a perfect life as an example to "true Christians" if those actions are "not at all from God"?

1 -New Testament .. different from Old Testament.

2 - Jesus did not keep the Old Testament laws. Not all of them. He preached the exact opposite of them.

Jesus ... Says - 'The meek shall inherit the Earth'
'God' of the OT ... Tells Moses to take over 'the promised land' by force.

Jesus ... Mercy incarnate. Forgiveness.
'God' of the OT ... Adam and Eve take a bite from an apple, so they and all mankind are forever punished with illness and pain and death.

Jesus ... Says - 'Love God and love your neighbor'
'God' of the OT - tells Joshua to slaughter whole towns of innocent people and animals for no reason.

Jesus ... says 'forgive seven times seventy times'
Jesus ... says 'But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (Mt 5:38-39)
'God' of the OT - 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand'
(which just leaves a lot of angry blind lame people )

Jesus directly contradicted the Old Testament 'God's violence -
Jesus Repudiation of Old Testament Violence

Most interestingly, in Deuteronomy Moses goes so far as to stress that the law must not be waved aside out of compassion. “Show no pity,” the text says, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). Yet, Jesus not only commands people to “show pity,” he replaces the Old Testament quid pro quo ethic with his radical ethic of unconditional love.

For example, while the Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies and sometimes command them to slaughter them, Jesus forbid his disciples from ever hating or doing any harm to an enemy. Instead, he commanded people to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:43-45). Luke includes the command to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you” and “pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk 6:27-28).

Most surprising of all, Jesus emphatically makes loving enemies rather than hating them the precondition to being a child of God. We’re to love, bless, pray for and do good to our enemies “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:45, emphasis added). Only if we love indiscriminately can we “be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Lk 6:35). Small wonder, therefore, that when Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms — Jesus rebuked him.

Jesus Without Baggage

But who wrote about God in the Old Testament? Was it God writing his own autobiography, or was it people writing about God as they understood him? I think it was the latter. The Old Testament is a collection of material written by many people, in many situations, over a long period of time. What they had in common was that they felt a connection to God or with the nation Israel.

Perhaps God provided special insights to some of them in some way, but we don’t know to what extent, and it seems that they had a very incomplete understanding of God. The Old Testament idea of God certainly reflects many of the assumptions about gods in the surrounding cultures of that day—things that we no longer believe.

The writers of the Old Testament were bound by the periods in which they lived, and their ideas of an angry, violent, vindictive God were products of their limitations. It is an incredible burden on them to expect that they were perfect in everything they wrote.

ElohimJD ... explain how we have 80,000 year old trees still living ... and 100,000 year old coral reefs undisturbed and still living .... and how we have ice core samples showing that time period and they reveal no flood happened.

randyvs
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Wonderful, all that text and none of it actually answers my question.

Oh! So it wasn't clear Im not going to answer you?

Well so what are you doing then? Trolling? I thought you'd respect me enough to have an honest debate with me, but I guess not. All you care about is repeating yourself over and over again without backing ANYTHING you say up. I'm sure I'll remember that in the future when I see you screen name.

reply to post by FlyersFan



whup... no wait I've heard this one...

Inbreeding was ok back in Noahs time... because humans genetics were perfect back then...

reply to post by ElohimJD


You have much more patience than i my friend.

reply to post by randyvs


randyvs ... answer the question please ... how can there be the population we have now if the flood happened in 4300 bc like the bible says? How can we have the numbers we have now? It's not possible. How can we have the ethnic diversity we have now? It's not possible. How can we have the population we have now. Answer this please. Stop avoiding the question.

FlyersFan

ElohimJD
Kangaroo's were brought to Australia at that time, under the oversight of Noah, just prior to his death 350 years after the flood.

1 - Noah didn't know anything about Australia. No one from that part of the world in 4300 bc would.
2 - He would have had to build another boat and float around the world delivering animals
3 - 16,000,000 animals would have to have been on the ark .. plus a years worth of food .. plus a years worth of fresh water. Obviously it couldn't have fit.

1- You sure assume much in regards to the knowledge of those long dead. Do you know all that others know? What kind of mind thinks that can claim to know what God gives to his servants?

2- Yes, a boat would be needed to relocate these creatures and people, good thing God already proved Noah's ability at building boats.

3- Your assumption on the numbers, I feel it was 2 of each "kind" of unclean animal and 7 of each "kind" of clean animal, as God's words clearly state. I also believe genetic mutations shortly after the catastrophe contributed to the subsequent species within each "kind" of animal.

By faith I know, by assumptions you fail to know.

This thread is like rewatching the Nye vs Ham debate again where no evidence would sway Ham at all.

From what I can see Randyvs is saying the only true Christians are those that believe as he believes I guess Ken Ham would be a true Christian then. In another era or even if this was another region this issue may have sparked yet another religious war I am very glad it is neither.

Next month I am set to go scuba diving some reefs, and it has inspired me to do some research on their age to which the ones I will be diving are approximately 6,000 years old. Of course coral reefs are direct evidence against a global flood but that only matters to those who care about evidence.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Well so what are you doing then? Trolling? I thought you'd respect me enough to have an honest debate with me, but I guess not. All you care about is repeating yourself over and over again without backing ANYTHING you say up. I'm sure I'll remember that in the future when I see you screen name.

For cry'in out loud Shot, I do respect the hell out of you. But personal questions are off limits.
That's all I can say about that. Certain things I won't just hand over. If you had something to
believe in? You might understand that. No disrespect, so don't read any into it. PLEASE!

ElohimJD
You sure assume much in regards to the knowledge of those long dead.

I assume nothing. I KNOW because science has proven it so.
Your population numbers were impossible.

Do you know all that others know? What kind of mind thinks that can claim to know what God gives to his servants?

This is word salad without meaning.

Yes, a boat would be needed to relocate these creatures and people, good thing God already proved Noah's ability at building boats.

... and every last stink'n tree on the planet would have been DEAD. There would have been NO WOOD to build anything with. The entire planet would have been under a mile of water for almost a year. Everything would be DEAD. No wood. Not for many many decades.

3- Your assumption on the numbers,

No assumption. There are 8,000,000 different kinds of critters on the planet now. There were even more back then before they went extinct. Two of each would be 16,000,000 critters on that boat. And yes, we know exactly what size the boat would have been. Those critters couldn't fit. That's not assumption. That's fact.

I also believe genetic mutations shortly after the catastrophe contributed to the subsequent species within each "kind" of animal.

Your 'belief' fails in the light of science proof.

By faith I know, by assumptions you fail to know.

By faith you have no clue ... and I don't assume, I know because science has proven it so.

Grimpachi
the ones I will be diving are approximately 6,000 years old.

Have fun diving! Watch out for sharks. Your reefs are rather young.
There are some in the world 100,000 years old. Can you imagine?
That's so awesome!!