endlessjake Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I apologize if this has already been answered a hundred times. It seems that even those who don't think the bible is 100% literally true still believe in Noah and the Great Flood. However, if it is true, how do they explain the existence of black people, or asians, or anyone not Jewish for that matter? Shouldn't everyone on the planet be Jewish (or whatever Noah was)? Is there a standard apologist response to that question? Thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Hmm, I don't remember a response to that. Probably because there are so many problems with that story. Now I'm interested too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeCoastie Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Perhaps Noah had a diverse family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Here's one Christian explanation with a snipit: The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah's family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God's command to “fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.1 http://www.christian...definition.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeCoastie Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Here's one Christian explanation with a snipit: The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah's family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God's command to “fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.1 http://www.christian...definition.html Apparently after getting off the arc 1. Noah's family repopulated super quickly to become different groups. 2. Those groups took Noah's old Arc building knowledge and sailed to the Americas, Australia, the Far East etc. 3. They immediately created completely different cultures and religions. 4. Then their skin magically changed color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Yea...so accepting Teh Flood means you have to accept an uber form of evolution for the diversity of species in such a short span of years. Bullet+foot=Christianity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I think that some bible literalists actually look at the flood as a local event (world meaning known world at the time), rather than a truly global event. Or at least I remember this being discussed back when I paid attention. Forgetting for a minute about man's genetic changes, really with dogs we've shown we can get a wide diversity in a short period (using non natural selection), what always confused me is fresh water fish. If you had an enormous flood assuming the water came from the polar caps, then you'd have a decrease globally in ocean saline content (if you've ever tried to raise saltwater fish you'll realize what happens real quickly if the salt content fluctuates..death). What about freshwater fish, the raise in salt content would kill them also, did noah take two of every freshwater fish and then go around the world repopulating them?? Did Noah take two of every lice, bed bug, flea, roach, ect. Damn noah, the current bed bug epidemic could have been stopped if he didn't feel the need to take two of them on his boat. Bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will02 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I think that some bible literalists actually look at the flood as a local event (world meaning known world at the time), rather than a truly global event. Or at least I remember this being discussed back when I paid attention. Forgetting for a minute about man's genetic changes, really with dogs we've shown we can get a wide diversity in a short period (using non natural selection), what always confused me is fresh water fish. If you had an enormous flood assuming the water came from the polar caps, then you'd have a decrease globally in ocean saline content (if you've ever tried to raise saltwater fish you'll realize what happens real quickly if the salt content fluctuates..death). What about freshwater fish, the raise in salt content would kill them also, did noah take two of every freshwater fish and then go around the world repopulating them?? Did Noah take two of every lice, bed bug, flea, roach, ect. Damn noah, the current bed bug epidemic could have been stopped if he didn't feel the need to take two of them on his boat. Bastard. That, plus being immersed in salt water for over a year would kill every plant in the world. Once the water receded, there would be so much salt in the soil that nothing would grow again for a long time (so much for that vineyard he always wanted!) until rain leached it all out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 That, plus being immersed in salt water for over a year would kill every plant in the world. Once the water receded, there would be so much salt in the soil that nothing would grow again for a long time (so much for that vineyard he always wanted!) until rain leached it all out.And don't forget all of the freshwater fish. And why wouldn't the salt water marine reptiles (like the plesiosaurs) survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Bah! What’s with all you people talking about evolution and genetics and other sciency stuff. Stop making sense! The way I heard it, it was the Curse of Ham that first gave rise to darkies. And, I heard it from True Christians™, who can’t possibly be wrong. The Curse of Ham (more properly called the Curse of Canaan) refers to the biblical incident in Genesis 9:20–27 in which Ham's father Noah placed a curse upon Ham's son Canaan. A possible objective of the story was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, but racial interpretations of the "curse of Ham" were used in later times to justify the enslavement of black Africans. More here: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Curse_of_Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 In the book of mormon, we get native americans because god cursed them with dark skin...... Anyways back to the topic, what always confused me is that the Nephilim (giants) were alive before the flood and yet when the Israelites went into canaan the descendants of the giants where around. Were they so tall that the survived the flood? Did the flood kill everyone but Noah, his family and the giants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Anyways back to the topic, what always confused me is that the Nephilim (giants) were alive before the flood and yet when the Israelites went into canaan the descendants of the giants where around. Were they so tall that the survived the flood? Did the flood kill everyone but Noah, his family and the giants? good catch. there are photoshop jobs of archaeologists digging up giant skeletons doing the rounds of the internet, which partuicularly lazy-ass apologists use as proof that giants existed. then there's this moron.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will02 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Anyways back to the topic, what always confused me is that the Nephilim (giants) were alive before the flood and yet when the Israelites went into canaan the descendants of the giants where around. Were they so tall that the survived the flood? Did the flood kill everyone but Noah, his family and the giants? Maybe they were just really good swimmers? All kidding aside, there's no evidence (fossils or otherwise) that anything resembling the Nephalim ever existed... no giant skeletons with 6 toes/fingers have ever been found to the best of my knowledge. Whoever wrote the David stories probably just cribbed some source material from Genesis. What better way to build up a legendary king character than to have him go out and whack a big scary giant? I watched that video and lots of things are wrong with it and I’m surprised that anyone would fall for it. For one, that footprint is in granite, but granite is an igneous rock. No footprint could have been made unless whatever made that stepped in lava before it hardened. (ouch!) All dinosaur footprints/fossil-bearing rocks have been found in sedimentary rocks like limestone, shale, etc. Also, it's amazing that plate tectonics shifted the footprint vertical without distorting it in the least. I'm guessing that footprint was either carved or it is a natural formation. (some natural formations resemble other things so much that they appear manmade) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Amazing the footprint of god, that solves everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I was taught that proof of the flood was evident in the rift that is under the ocean and apparently goes around the earth (seriously from the lecture I had in Bible college). Honestly I haven't thought about where the various skin tones and types of people come from. It is surprising really how little I questioned or thought about things considering that I've been in school for so long. I think I heard someone say that the various people groups descended from Noah and what not. However, now that I think about it, I can see that it would have meant massive incest. With incest comes diseases, right? So with that line of thinking, I was able to rationalize to myself that all of the diseases we have were the result of incest going on after the flood. Isn't incest wrong in the Bible? Am so tempted to just pick the thing up and start reading it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 So it suddenly becomes convenient for the chiristian to use evolution when it helps to explain the bible. How nice. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I was taught that proof of the flood was evident in the rift that is under the ocean and apparently goes around the earth (seriously from the lecture I had in Bible college). Honestly I haven't thought about where the various skin tones and types of people come from. It is surprising really how little I questioned or thought about things considering that I've been in school for so long. I think I heard someone say that the various people groups descended from Noah and what not. However, now that I think about it, I can see that it would have meant massive incest. With incest comes diseases, right? So with that line of thinking, I was able to rationalize to myself that all of the diseases we have were the result of incest going on after the flood. Isn't incest wrong in the Bible? Am so tempted to just pick the thing up and start reading it again. the usual explanation is that Noah was close enough genetically to Adam (who was created perfect, so his genes were perfect too), that incest wouldn't have caused deformities because the gene pool was not polluted yet. or some shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 So it suddenly becomes convenient for the chiristian to use evolution when it helps to explain the bible. How nice. :| But it's just microevolution, none of the macro- stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts