Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

on Mar 25, 2009

As a bi-lingual person I must tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a perfect "word by word" translation, because most words do not perfectly MATCH another word, most have double meanings as well as implications that are lost in translation. And quite often the translator completely butchers the translation and adds things or deletes things etc...

As a person who read the bible in hebrew and english I can tell you it is very different.

317

lulapilgrim

on Mar 25, 2009

LEAUKI POSTS:

It was the Christians who interpreted the story as a story about a world-wide flood. The Hebrew text does NOT say such.

KFC POSTS:

again this is where you and I get into semantic disagreements. You don't look at the whole picture.

KFC. you have Leauki pegged. Reading Hebrew is one thing but applying it in context with other passages is something else. And this must be done in order to arrive at the meaning.

As far as I can tell, Genesis 6, in all languages, in all translations and versions, speaks of a one time, extraordinary, universal flood and some of those passages (as translated from the original Hebrew by St.Jerome) have been pointed out in posts #299 and 301.

Leauki posts:

The idea of a world-wide flood came up when messianic sects (including early Christianity) needed a concept of grave sins and redemption.

No. Leauki...the idea of a world-wide flood comes from reading Genesis 6 and you don't have to read far to learn that God was offended by sin and not just the sin of people of the local Mesopotamia area, but sin all over the world. V.6 God regretted that He had made man, and not just the people of the local Mesopotamia area.

If G-d had come up with the idea of flooding the entire world, He would have said so in the Bible. The fact that He did not confirms what we know about the number of species and the population of the world 4000 years ago.

God did say so..that's what we've been telling you....God caused the Great Flood...He was there and He is the One who inspired the writer to write Genesis 6. Genesis 6 is God's revelation of what took place and why.

I am just telling you that the Bible does NOT speak of a world-wide flood or an ark that rescued ALL species of animal.

KFC POSTS:

Believe what you want but to me the evidence is overwhelming and the way the scriptures read it's quite clear this was no ordinary flood.

Think about this.....if the flood was local then God lied to Noah when he promised never to send a destructive flood again (9:11). But we know there have been many local destructive floods ever since.

This is another good point...more evidence of a universal flood.

Geology also confirms a Great Flood of Noe and helps answer questions such as how the animals travelled to the Ark.

Genesis 7:11-12 describes great geological upheavals all over the world so it's destructive magnitude was very great. It says, "on that same day, were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (the canopy was broken). And the rain was upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights." Lots and lots of torrential water that continued 150 days bringing total destruction when it was all done.

Geologists note 3 mechanisms that God used to destroy the earth by Flood. "All the fountains of the great deep" were underwater volcanoes spewing out into the ocean basins. The subterranean chambers of water caused techonism of a broad scale. After being emptied some collapsed into sedimentary basins which later lifted to form mountain chains. When a volcanoe erupts underwater, it causes a tsunami which pushes water towards the continents and this water from every direction dumped sediments and marine fossils to the land in places where marine fossils under ordinary conditions would never be found.

Finally, 6 months after the start of the Flood, 8:3, "the waters returned from off the earth." They decreased continually for the next several months until the tops of the mountains were seen. v. 5.

The topographical world before the Flood was completely different afterward. It is thought that the continents of Africa and Asia and South America were together before the Flood and during the time of the breaking of the fountains of the deep, the Mid Altlantic ridge developed and forced the land to break apart as it is today.

Through modern technology, we are now able to see the ocean floor....and only the Great Flood of Noe explains existance of the Mid Atlantic Ridge, and the mountains and canyons as we see them today.

Check out this short video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIBWMig3dCw

318

lulapilgrim

on Mar 26, 2009

Lula posts:

The Douay Rheims Version is the most accurate and reliable translation of St.Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405AD), which in turn is a word-for-word translation from the original languages

This is true but Lula that's what is being asserted here....a translation from a translation. The DR is the English from the Latin which is from the Gk.

But the NASB is directly from the Hebrew and Greek which is more reliable. The DR is good as far as the translation from the Latin is concerned but not necessarily from the original language and you do lose some meaning when you do it that way. It would have been better if the DR was directly from the GK and Hebrew. It's not. It's from the Latin. Now the Latin was ok and Jerome was certainly very linguistic but then to go from that to the English isn't totally going to be translated with 100% accuracy.

....I think that's why you and I had some conversations about diff words back along......remember body? and vulture?

KFC,

Gosh, I wish you would have stopped with "This is true"....

Addressing the highlighted.....

I really don't want to belabor this but would like to make a couple of points about the Douay Rheims translation. As you know, the OT books were originally written in Hebrew. And St.Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew to Latin. Therefore, there wasn't any Greek involved.

All of the 27 Books of the NT were written in Greek except St.Matthew's Gospel written in Aramaic. Those, St.Jerome translated directly from Greek to Latin, so you are correct that the DR is an English translation from the Latin from the Greek . What is of paramount importance concerning the translation of the original Hebrew in the OT and Greek in the NT is that he had far more texts that simply no longer exist today. Further, he was 1600 years closer to the original languages than modern scholars. Who's going to be a better translater of exact Hebrew and Greek words and meanings employed in Scripture? Is St. Jerome or modern scholars who have to learn their ancient Greek and Hebrew from grammars,lexicons, dictionaries and from professors who presumably do not speak the language natively and who themselves had to learn it and so forth back through time? I'm betting on St.Jerome who I believe God guided every step of the way. And what's more, his Latin translation from the originals has gone from then through today uncorrupted.

The Council of Trent officially (ex cathedra) declared St. Jerome's translation to be the literally authentic version of canonical Scriptures. That means it is free from any error in matters of faith and morals and that the Chruch testifies and affirms it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in errors and in preaching. The reason the DR is so important is becasue it's the only English Bible that is a faithful word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. The absolute fidelty to the Vulgate has always been its claim. So it really comes down to this...If God does not guide the translation of the Holy Bible, then it's meaning can be easily lost which I believe is the case with every other English translation other than the Douay Rheims. I believe that Almighty God was there guiding St.Jerome and the translators of the DR Bible.

But the NASB is directly from the Hebrew and Greek which is more reliable. The DR is good as far as the translation from the Latin is concerned but not necessarily from the original language and you do lose some meaning when you do it that way. It would have been better if the DR was directly from the GK and Hebrew. It's not. It's from the Latin. Now the Latin was ok and Jerome was certainly very linguistic but then to go from that to the English isn't totally going to be translated with 100% accuracy.

....I think that's why you and I had some conversations about diff words back along......remember body? and vulture?

Turns out the Latin Vulgate is more than OK...it is the only version around today that has virtually been left alone uncorrupted...in short it hasn't gone through translation after translation and neither has the Douay Rheims.

There is no way the Protestant NASB is taken directly from the Hebrew and Greek.

1----They don't have any of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and so they are translating transcriptions of other texts.

2---The NASB employs translations of certain words, which though correct in some sense of the words, are often incorrect for the particular use in which they occur in the Holy Bible. (i'll get back to this one with an example.)

3---Becasue the original languages of the Holy Bible is difficult to understand, they changed the words to make it easier to read and understand. Unfortunately, they are not always accurate if God's meaning is translated out.

One website explained the 1995 NASB translation was taken from a 1901 ASV translation becasue they "sought to render grammer and terminology in contemporary English." The verb tenses were "as close as possible" to the original Greek and Hebrew. The NASB 1995 translation was because they wanted to make it updated to modern English and "words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years have been updated to current English and "verses with difficult word order or vocabulary have been retranslated into smoother English."

Sorry, KFC, the NASB translation is neither directly from the Greek and Hebrew, nor is it more reliable than the DR. For one, if the goal is to render it to contemporary English then it can't be a faithful and accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. It can't be both ways...so your claim doesn't hold water.

Now back to this:

2---The NASB employs translations of certain words, which though correct in some sense of the words, are often incorrect for the particular use in which they occur in the Holy Bible. (i'll get back to this one with an example.)

Concerning which meaning of the original words of Scripture to use in making accurate English translation, let's consider the word "grace", in Greek, Charis. By the time St.Paul wrote the Greek word charis already had its specific Christian theological meaning. St.Jerome corresponded to St.Paul's meaning by translating charis into Latin as gratia, which in English becomes "grace".

Here's the Douay Rheims translation of St.Luke 1: 27-28..."To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Here's the NASB translation of St.Luke 1:27-28...." ²⁷to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ²⁸And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

Hmmmm....It doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish the difference between being "full of grace" and "favored". True, favor or favored is one meaning of charis, but not the one intended by St.Luke. A woman may be highly favored with any number of talents, abilitites or with good looks or having lots of money, etc. But that doesn't mean that she is "full of grace". The Blessed Virgin was "full of grace" in the sense of being absolutely full of God's divine life (sanctifying grace), so if she is full of grace, there is no sin on her soul whatsoever. What a difference in meaning.

319

Leauki

on Mar 26, 2009

"The Ark was, according to the specifications laid down to be 300 cubits long by 500 cubits wide by 30 cubits highs. The ratios of these numbers are very interesting. They obviously reflect an advanced knowledge of ship building. The Babylonian account which speaks of the Ark as a cube betrays complete ignorance. Such a vessel would spin slowly around. But the Bible ratios leave nothing to be desired." Frederick Filby.

That's probably true and fits my explanation that such boats were common in Mesopotamia. Trading city states at two big rivers obviously had advanced boat-building technology. I wouldn't be surprised if they were superior to current technology in many aspects.

They could evolve after the flood. Many did. We have more species now than before. Christians have no problem with species evolving from their own kind. It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato.

And there we go again with your strawmen technique. Darwinism doesn't claim that fish turn into birds (or watermelons into tomatoes).

In fact I have explained before how one species can evolve into two without ever becoming another species. But I guess the "Christian principle of honesty" doesn't help you in ignoring this whenever you want to repeat your build-in "argument".

KFC. you have Leauki pegged. Reading Hebrew is one thing but applying it in context with other passages is something else. And this must be done in order to arrive at the meaning.

Having someone "pegged" for you means that you disagree with them. So that is not really an argument. I already knew that you had me "pegged" and that you will always disagree with a literal reading of the text.

As far as I can tell, Genesis 6, in all languages, in all translations and versions, speaks of a one time, extraordinary, universal flood and some of those passages (as translated from the original Hebrew by St.Jerome) have been pointed out in posts #299 and 301.

The Latin translation you pointed me to translates "eretz" as "terra", which means "land" (not "earth").

We have here a literal reading of the text which agrees with what we know about physics and history from other sources and a Christian version which does not.

Guess which version I believe?

320

Leauki

on Mar 26, 2009

As you know, the OT books were originally written in Hebrew. And St.Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew to Latin. Therefore, there wasn't any Greek involved.

This is the sentence in question (one of them):

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C007.htm#V6

The Hebrew is "3al-haAretz". "3al" means "on" even though some English versions translate it as "all over". "3al" implies that something was under the water (it could also imply that the water was parallel to a wall). The land is here seen as below the water (not surrounded by it like a planet filled with water would be). "HaAretz" means "the land". There is a newspaper of the same name.

But let's refer to the Latin translation you keep bringing up as "evidence" for your point of view. I'm not sure if you speak Latin and know what it actually says, but I do.

The Latin translation for "3al-haAretz" here is "super terram" ("terram" is the accusative case of "terra").

"Terra" means "earth , land, ground, soil; a country, land, region" (not "planet Earth"):

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=terr&ending=a

And "super" with accusative is a preposition and means "over, above, upon", also implying a over-under relationship with whatever "haAretz" is:

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=super&ending=

You think you are impressing people by knowing the names of many translations? I assume this usually works. You tell me people that translation X also says what original text Y said, and it never matters that you understand neither the original text nor the translation. Unfortunately I can read both the original text and the Latin translation...

However, the Latin text is interesting. While the English and German translations use a word that NOW means "planet Earth" (and 500 years ago meant "land"), the Latin translation actually uses a word that means "land" and "region" and "earth" in a sense which clearly isn't and never was the entire planet.

It makes a lot of sense that people living in an age where the shape of the world wasn't known and where nobody knew how much of it there actually is, didn't think that a text mentioning "land" referred to more land than they could imagine. And it didn't.

The flood story refers to northern Mesopotamia. That's what the text says and that's what very possibly happened (unless the story is simply wrong). Anything else is interpretation and, to a large degree, nonsense.

Think about this.....if the flood was local then God lied to Noah when he promised never to send a destructive flood again (9:11). But we know there have been many local destructive floods ever since.

I am not aware of another destructive flood in northern Mesopotamia. Can you cite a source?

321

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 26, 2009

I am not aware of another destructive flood in northern Mesopotamia. Can you cite a source?

good question Leauki....but you have a slight problem here....what about the rainbow? Is the rainbow only seen in Mesopotamia?

When you can answer that in the affirmative I'll answer your question.

You may want to research what the rainbow stood for.

322

EL-DUDERINO

on Mar 26, 2009

What I found in my studies of this time period are amazing in that there is no way someone could make all this up.

And I guess this is an example where you have to accept the story on your faith, I do not accept your story but I could potentially accept Leauki's version of it because it is much more plausible. To add to the impossibility your version of the story, how would Noah have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas?

but it did. The topography was changed as a result of the flood. What we see today with the continents separated like this we did not have before the flood.

This is impossible. It took a long time (thousands of years) for water to carve out the grand canyon but your saying that our continents were greated by one flood? We know that the continents are the way they are because of tectonic plate shifting, not because of a flood.

While there have been countless corroborating stories over the years about people seeing the ark (very large boat) inbedded in rock in modern Turkey there is yet another group going up into those mountains to investigate this. I heard there's an expedition going up this coming summer.

There have also been many reports of seeing what appeared to be a face on Mars but upon further investigation it turned out to just be light and shadow playing tricks. Until someone actually finds a boat up there I ain't buying it.

so you'd rather believe a lie that man told than the truth that God revealed to us thru his word? Hmmmm doesn't make sense to me but diff boats for diff folks.

No I'd rather accept something that makes logical sense vs. something that is physically impossible. And again you are assuming that God exists and that the bible is his word before you even open the book, I don't have that assumption.

Yes it does and it makes absolute sense. And we really do have a way of imagining it. Why would you say that? With the devestating tsunamis it really does give us a modern take on an old account.

No a global flood makes no sense, at least to me. If it makes sense to you that's fine you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. The tsunamis prove that floods like that can do massive destruction sure, but not that a global flood is possible.

really? And you know this as fact? You didn't answer my questions...how many animals are we talking about? How big is the boat? You did the math?

I don't need to have all the numbers. The key here is that your version of the ark story says that the ark had to hold two of every species. We still don't know how many species exist on earth how could Noah have loaded two of each onto the boat? I mean we're talking about two of each species of bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian(since they can't live in a 100% water environment), insect, etc. There is just no way that all of them could have fit on any boat no matter what size it was, especially boats made out of wood. The reason we have such large vessels today is because of the metal that they are made of and the modern technology used to allow them to displace enough water to carry the loads they are designed to carry. And by the way, how big is a cubit?

Really? Have you ever thought about hibernation? Hmmm?

Hibernation is a good theory, but not all species hibernate. In fact some species like humans can't hibernate. I suppose the reptiles could go into some sort of a dormant state if they were cold enough but I'm not sure if that is really survivable for them. Birds can't hibernate as far as I'm aware if you have evidence to suggest that they could please enlighten me.

See El-D you're making assertions without having all the facts.

What facts to I need to make my assetions? I know that there are a lot of species of animals out there. I find impossible to think that two of each could be loaded onto a boat let alone the food and water needed to care for them. And again the burden is on you to prove that it is possible not on me to disprove it.

So we may reasonably conclude that no more than 35,000 individual vertebrate animals (probably average size of sheep) boarded this ark. It has been estimated that a train hauling 150 boxcars could easily handle these animals. But the Ark had a carrying capacity of more than 520 stock cars! Plenty of room for the family and food to last the duration.

Ok let's assume that your numbers are correct. How does a family of 5 (if I recall it was Noah, his wife and three kids) care for 35,000 animals? It takes a large staff to care for the animals in a zoo and that is no where near 35,000 animals. We're talking about not just feeding the animals and making sure they have water but also cleaning their living quarters of fecal matter, etc. So even if the boat was large enough to hold all the animals (which I still think is suspect) I don't see how 5 people could have cared for that many animals.

we know that dinos and humans didn't exist at the same time? Really. I don't know that. Do you have privilege information? You know this for sure? Why because some Scientist said so?

Have you been the smithsonian? We know from dating the bones when the dinosaurs died out. We know from dating human bones when they died and from that we know that the oldest human remains found are no where near when the dinosaurs died out. So now your saying that science is just plain wrong in all of this. I can understand if you want to say that we have an incomplete fossil record but that doesn't mean that science is completely wrong.

When I hear the same parroting going on...I know.

You don't think that its possible I did my own research and happened to come to the same conclusions as others? Well the same can be said about you. You are making the same arguments that I've heard over and over again does that mean that you are simply believing what others have told you? No you did research and just happen to agree with them. It's not the same thing.

but at least I know that I'm not believing something just because someone told me so.

And I know the same thing about myself no matter what you may assume about me.

But of course, the scientists are reporting something else (that keeps changing btw) so you need to believe them even though they have no hard packed evidence to rely on. It's purely guesswork and conjecture based on their own prejudice and bias until something else comes up.

If this is what you believe of science then we may as well stop debating each other. Science changes as evidence comes in. And with the exception of the theoretical sciences (like theoretical physics) it is based on observable facts not guesswork and conjecture. Yes there are some out there who create conclusions first and then find evidence to support it, but those people aren't scientists. A scientist creates a hypothesis and then seeks to find evidence to either prove or disprove it. If he/she finds evidence that disproves the hypothesis then the hypothesis is changed until the truth is found based on the evidence collected.

There is only one possible interpretation. We are fallible. The scriptures are not. If you and I and Leauki all have diff interpretations, we are not all right. This should drive us to look closer and outside of our ownselves to get at the truth. The scripture always interprets scripture. The truth sometimes can take a while to get at especially when it's surrounded by so many lies.

So you admit that your interpretation could be wrong.

I can hardly believe what you're saying El-D

Fine. Don't believe me. I really don't care. This entire discussion has devolved to the point where you have concluded that I am getting my info from other sources rather than my own research and there is nothing that I can do to change your opinion since what I say may have already been said by others. And I could make the exact same conclusion about you but I chose not to.

I'm done trying to debate with you.

323

Leauki

on Mar 26, 2009

good question Leauki....but you have a slight problem here....what about the rainbow? Is the rainbow only seen in Mesopotamia?

I presume so. Most rainbows are only seen at certain places.

I have yet to see one that was visible in many distinct places far from each other.

You may want to research what the rainbow stood for.

I don't care what the rainbow stood for. A rainbow is a rainbow is a rainbow. It's like the snake which is a snake (and not the devil). For me a word simply means what the word means. I don't need it to stand for anything else.

324

Leauki

on Mar 26, 2009

I could potentially accept Leauki's version of it because it is much more plausible.

Thanks.

I was actually at the place and had a look at the landscape. It looked exactly as I imagined it from my reading of the story.

325

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 26, 2009

If this is what you believe of science then we may as well stop debating each other. Science changes as evidence comes in. And with the exception of the theoretical sciences (like theoretical physics) it is based on observable facts not guesswork and conjecture.

my son is a Scientist and a strong believer. He told me recently that people have no idea how much bias is in Science. We all start with preconceived biases. All of us regardless if we are Scientists or not. The non- Christian Scientists are looking to prove things without God because their bias at the foundation is there is no God. The Scientists who are believers look at the evidence with their pre-conceived bias that there is a God.

Ok let's assume that your numbers are correct. How does a family of 5 (if I recall it was Noah, his wife and three kids) care for 35,000 animals? It takes a large staff to care for the animals in a zoo and that is no where near 35,000 animals. We're talking about not just feeding the animals and making sure they have water but also cleaning their living quarters of fecal matter, etc. So even if the boat was large enough to hold all the animals (which I still think is suspect) I don't see how 5 people could have cared for that many animals.

How close are you to the OH/KY boarder? You may want to check out the Creation Museum that just opened up about a year or two ago. They have a huge area dedicated just to the ark...how it was built, how the whole thing worked, what the various rooms were for etc. If I remember right the floors had like open grates where the fecal matter went into to keep it clean...but again think about the hibernation theory.

Also El-D don't forget you don't know the scriptures so you're going on hearsay.....there were 8 people on board. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives......does that help?

You don't think that its possible I did my own research and happened to come to the same conclusions as others? Well the same can be said about you.

No, I don't think you did your research. That's proved by your lack of knowing the scriptures and the other side of the debate. You couldn't have gone very deep at all into the other side. What you did was buy hook, line and sinker what only the secular side is telling you. Any information you got from the Christian side was from the "scientific" side. Be honest El-D. Otherwise you would have known much of what I've been telling you and you did not.

The same can't be said of me because I was you once upon a time. Somewhere along the way (in my 20's) I changed from being where you are now to where I am now. It's like walking out of a dark room into the light. The light exposes everything....and then it becomes very clear.

I know that there are a lot of species of animals out there. I find impossible to think that two of each could be loaded onto a boat let alone the food and water needed to care for them. And again the burden is on you to prove that it is possible not on me to disprove it.

First off the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not trying to prove a thing. I'm trying to enlighten you and give you something to think about by giving you information that is factual. It's only God who changes hearts and minds. I can lead you so far, he does the rest. Now having said that...I don't think water was a problem do you? As far as food goes, if many were in hibernation that cuts down alot of food. Then there are others who provide milk and maybe zoo could tell us more when it comes to how various animals eat and digest food. I'm not that knowledgeable about animal behavior thruout the animal kingdom. Besides all that...think about this.....some came on board in sevens not pairs.

Hibernation is a good theory, but not all species hibernate.

I didn't say they all did but at least I'm getting something positive out of you....if not for the but, that is. You asked me how Noah could have taken care of all those animals and I gave you a very good explanation. From what I understand the flood happened in November which makes sense as far as hibernation goes....besides all that I'm sure these animals had the peace of God to quiet them like never before.

I don't need to have all the numbers.

so you don't need any facts to back your claims up? Just going by your gut? How does that work for you anyway? Are you always right when you go out on a limb like this? At least I gave you plausible numbers put forth by a taxonomist. What are you going on? It's ok to push me to prove where I'm going, but you once again, are giving me nothing but your opinion and where you want this to go. Do you know why?

The tsunamis prove that floods like that can do massive destruction sure, but not that a global flood is possible.

why not? What are you going on? How do you account for all the evidences I've already given?

No I'd rather accept something that makes logical sense vs. something that is physically impossible. And again you are assuming that God exists and that the bible is his word before you even open the book, I don't have that assumption.

No, I'm not assuming El-D. I know that God exists....he's made himself known to me as well as countless others. We are all witnesses to him being alive and well. I can't help it that you don't believe the many witnesses including the fact that his fingerprints are all over this earth. So who put all this here anyway? Who put you here? Where did you come from? Nothing? And that's logical? Ok.

Until someone actually finds a boat up there I ain't buying it.

ha! They will but I don't think if they found Noah's body there you'd believe it....even Christ said they won't even believe if a man rises from the dead.

I'm telling you El-D there's a reason why you don't believe.

This is impossible. It took a long time (thousands of years) for water to carve out the grand canyon but your saying that our continents were greated by one flood? We know that the continents are the way they are because of tectonic plate shifting, not because of a flood.

think about it.....drip drip drip over thousands of years or one large flood with rushing pushing heavy water? Which would make changes faster? We've already got proof in Mt. St. Heleons how one catastrophe can make a huge change in the landscape. So impossible? Are you sure?

To add to the impossibility your version of the story, how would Noah have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas?

I already answered this. Are you really reading what I'm posting?

So you admit that your interpretation could be wrong.

It can be. I've been wrong before. Am I wrong about Noah and the Ark? No. I may be wrong about some of the details because some is conjecture and opinion and I try to make sure I point that out.....like the hibernation. We don't know for sure but it does help and make sense and is quite a natural thing to happen.

The thing is not to hang onto a wrong thought because of our pride. I'm a truth seeker. If I'm wrong, I'm ok with that because it just drives me to find the truth even more. I don't really care about my pride or my opinion. I want at the truth and the more I find it the more it challenges me and makes me thirsty to find more.

Fine. Don't believe me. I really don't care. This entire discussion has devolved to the point where you have concluded that I am getting my info from other sources rather than my own research

Com'on El-D...don't be that way. If you were me what would you think? You just came out and said there were five people (not eight) on that ark. That's just a simple thing not to know. Obviously you haven't done your research totally. You're only being half truthful here. I think you've done the research that tells you what you really want to hear. You didn't know how big the ark was, nor how many animals are thought to be included, nor how long it took to build this boat....yet you are very dogmatic that not only have done your research but that you have concluded beyond question that you have the truth about all this. How can that be when you haven't even got a grasp of the historical account of Noah from the Christian perspective?

You have to look at both sides equally and honestly before you can really know the truth. Otherwise you could very well be buying the lie that supresses the truth. It's called indoctrination, not education.

Happens all the time.

326

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 26, 2009

presume so. Most rainbows are only seen at certain places.

I have yet to see one that was visible in many distinct places far from each other.

everyone has seen rainbows no matter where they live. Anywhere I've lived or visited, north, south or inbetween I've seen a rainbow after a shower.

I don't care what the rainbow stood for. A rainbow is a rainbow is a rainbow. It's like the snake which is a snake (and not the devil). For me a word simply means what the word means. I don't need it to stand for anything else.

Of course you don't care because it puts a sinker into your dogmatic assertion that the flood was just a local flood. If it weren't for the rainbow you might be right. The rainbow puts a kink in your theory Leauki.

It's funny how you dismiss this tho.

It's the bigger picture that you don't want to look at like I've been saying all along.

The rainbow was a promise to the "world" that God would never destroy the earth again by flood. The fact that we still today have local flooding and the fact that we all see rainbows no matter where we are shows this was no local flood.

This promise was to the world.

327

Leauki

on Mar 26, 2009

Actually, nobody answered how Noah would have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas.

And I think I should make note again of the most important aspect of this:

The Bible does NOT actually tell of a world-wide flood. Neither the Hebrew text nor the Latin translation Lula referred to speak of a world-wide flood.

It was messianic sects who interpreted a story about a local event to be about all humanity. And Egypt did not become a major power less than 300 years after all humanity had died out. A literal reading of the text does _NOT_ give us a world-wide flood.

The questions about the physical impossibility of Noah's task are valid, but they question only the non-literal interpretation of the story. The real, literal story about a flood in the entire land of Aram Naharaim doesn't have these weaknesses. (It's still implausible, but entirely possible.)

I think we have to keep this in mind:

The Bible does NOT tell of a world-wide flood.

(And neither does it prohibit civil unions among homosexual men for that matter.)

328

Leauki

on Mar 26, 2009

everyone has seen rainbows no matter where they live. Anywhere I've lived or visited, north, south or inbetween I've seen a rainbow after a shower.

And you are certain that it was the same rainbow?

Of course you don't care because it puts a sinker into your dogmatic assertion that the flood was just a local flood.

What dogmatic assertion? It is YOU who asserts that there was a world-wide flood without any evidence of any kind whatsoever. I merely tell you what the actual text says, and it doesn't say that the flood was world-wide. The people for whom the text was written didn't even have an idea of what "world-wide" is.

The Bible also claims that King Cyrus ruled over all the land (same word). Following your logic he was king of America 2500 years ago. But the Indians had never heard of him to be sure.

If it weren't for the rainbow you might be right. The rainbow puts a kink in your theory Leauki.

How so?

329

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 26, 2009

The Bible also claims that King Cyrus ruled over all the land (same word). Following your logic he was king of America 2500 years ago. But the Indians had never heard of him to be sure.

which scripture are you referring to? After Cyrus came Rome and then Greece and they too were world wide kingdoms. But remember it was the "known world." Alexander conqured the whole "known world." What Indians are you speaking of? American?

What dogmatic assertion? It is YOU who asserts that there was a world-wide flood without any evidence of any kind whatsoever.

Your dogmatic assertion that it was only a local flood and therefore you held up Mesopotamia as your example. You asked me to give you other floods that happened in this area trying to prove that it was only a local flood and that God kept his promise. In order to believe that Leauki we'd have to say the rainbow was meant for ONLY Mesopotamia and it's not. The whole world has rainbows and it goes back to the promise that God would never again destroy the world by flood.

And you are certain that it was the same rainbow?

why wouldn't I be? Unless I'm trying to discount this whole story then I guess I'd be fishing around for another explanation. When we see a rainbow in the sky what does it mean and how is it diff than the one that was first seen by Noah?

The Bible does NOT tell of a world-wide flood.

wrong and you keep repeating yourself Leauki... you've said this about 20 times already no matter what anyone else has to say. It does tell of a world wide flood.

And neither does it prohibit civil unions among homosexual men for that matter.)

True. Nothing about civil unions among homosexuals. But the principle that this shouldn't even be a question is found in scripture.......a man should not lie with another man nor a woman a woman.

So I guess if you were talking about homosexual who were abstaining from sex and were only companions.....I wouldn't have a problem with that from a scriptural POV.

330

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Mar 26, 2009

Actually, nobody answered how Noah would have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas.

Yes I did. Are you only saying this because El-D said this even though I said I already answered this? I said this in #314

2. Scripture says that God himself gathered these animals Gen 7:8-9. When the tsunami happened in Indonesia what was interesting was there were very few dead animals found because the reports were they were running towards higher ground. Gave us a bit of insight what could have happened. It says the fountains of the deep exploded so probably the animals sensed what was about to happen and went to higher ground where Noah was building his Ark.

I also said that there is strong indication that prior to the flood the continents of the earth were not separated by vast bodies of water as they are today.

Remember it took 120 years to build this ark. Plenty of time for the animals to travel.

also I just thought it's funny we're having this rainbow discussion given the fact that the homosexuals use that as a symbol for their unity.