God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[sdelsolray]

IH:

 

300 million years ago the earth was one continent. 300 million years ago. That's when the kangaroos could have hopped to the middle east. Nevermind that the penguins would have died from heatstroke.

 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

Or the mountains, or the rivers, or the inland lakes, or the deserts, or the unfamiliar predators, or the thousands of miles of distance.  And that's only if such species undertook to travel from their familiar location and environment on one continent 300 million years ago.  At five miles a day over 5,000 miles, that would take nearly three years, with no time off for normal things, such as foraging, having offspring, raising offspring, etc.  Of course, many current species did not even exist then.  Nevermind the facts.  IH "believes".

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

Could you imagine what it would be like to have only one genetic great grandfather and one genetic great grandmother.  Your grandparents were all brother and sister.  Your parents were first cousins.  And you would bleed to death at the slightest injury.  The stupid is epic.

 

 

MM, if you add godly magic to the problem, then the problem is erased! Simple...

 

 

 

Good point.  God must love incest because God chose to make it part of his plan twice.  Adam's kids had to bang their siblings and Noah's grandkids had to bang their siblings or first cousins.  Isn't God's plan wonderful?

 

 

Well, he only loved incest until he stopped loving incest, which is when he decided to make it a sin.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

You've changed the subject. Were the dinosaurs on the ark? The continent of Pangea is millions of years ago. The OT is not about events millions of years ago. How do you explain this?

 

 

I was not changing the subject. I was explaining my view on when they did exist.

 

No, I do not think dinosaurs were on the ark.

 

Again concerning the first verse of Genesis and chapter one, I don't know the exact time period.

 

But by saying there was one supercontinent, Pangea, you place the events at millions of years ago. So you do give it a time frame. 

 

 

Like I said, I don't know the exact time period (frame).

 

The only logical conclusion you can come to is that the Noah's ark story makes no sense. How did the kangaroos and penguins get back to their respective continents, or TO the ark? The continents were already separated. The Bible is not literally true. You just established that.

 

 

 

No, I'm not saying the Biblical account of creation is false. I'm only saying there is a lot of stuff in between the verses I don't know.

 

Given the facts, it is the only logical conclusion. The Noah's ark story is false. You can't accept the facts so now you make up a theory that there is stuff "in between the verses". Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Between the verses?

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've changed the subject. Were the dinosaurs on the ark? The continent of Pangea is millions of years ago. The OT is not about events millions of years ago. How do you explain this?

 

 

I was not changing the subject. I was explaining my view on when they did exist.

 

No, I do not think dinosaurs were on the ark.

 

Again concerning the first verse of Genesis and chapter one, I don't know the exact time period.

 

But by saying there was one supercontinent, Pangea, you place the events at millions of years ago. So you do give it a time frame. 

 

 

Like I said, I don't know the exact time period (frame).

 

The only logical conclusion you can come to is that the Noah's ark story makes no sense. How did the kangaroos and penguins get back to their respective continents, or TO the ark? The continents were already separated. The Bible is not literally true. You just established that.

 

 

 

No, I'm not saying the Biblical account of creation is false. I'm only saying there is a lot of stuff in between the verses I don't know.

 

Given the facts, it is the only logical conclusion. The Noah's ark story is false. You can't accept the facts so now you make up a theory that there is stuff "in between the verses". Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Between the verses?

 

 

 

I am aware of some of the facts you base your conclusion on.That's find. I respect that. I just see enough that tells me the science is not all settled.

 

And I agree, I guess what I am saying does seem ridiculous. 

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

You've changed the subject. Were the dinosaurs on the ark? The continent of Pangea is millions of years ago. The OT is not about events millions of years ago. How do you explain this?

 

 

I was not changing the subject. I was explaining my view on when they did exist.

 

No, I do not think dinosaurs were on the ark.

 

Again concerning the first verse of Genesis and chapter one, I don't know the exact time period.

 

But by saying there was one supercontinent, Pangea, you place the events at millions of years ago. So you do give it a time frame. 

 

 

Like I said, I don't know the exact time period (frame).

 

The only logical conclusion you can come to is that the Noah's ark story makes no sense. How did the kangaroos and penguins get back to their respective continents, or TO the ark? The continents were already separated. The Bible is not literally true. You just established that.

 

 

 

No, I'm not saying the Biblical account of creation is false. I'm only saying there is a lot of stuff in between the verses I don't know.

 

 You have no knowledge of any other assertion you have made today in this thread.  Remember, you simply "believe".  You simply have "faith" that your mere assertions are true.

 

Accordinly, it's not just the stuff "in between" that you don't know.  You "know" nothing because all of your assertions are based on mere belief and mere religious faith.

 

You can't have it both ways.  Faith is based on the absence of relevant empirical evidence.  Your beliefs flow off that faith with the inherent quality of you being, remaining and insisting on being willfully ignorant of relevant empirical evidence that contradicts those beliefs.

 

In short, you are simply preaching your particular religious dogma, a dogma that you were indoctrinated with over many many years.

 

For the lurkers - IH demonstrates (once again) a shallow, narrow and myopic view which is based on fiction from one particular religion.  He remains a coward because he is unwilling to question the delusions he promotes.

[mymistake]

 

 

No, I'm not saying the Biblical account of creation is false. I'm only saying there is a lot of stuff in between the verses I don't know.

 

Given the facts, it is the only logical conclusion. The Noah's ark story is false. You can't accept the facts so now you make up a theory that there is stuff "in between the verses". Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Between the verses?

 

 

Raptor Jesus is between the verses.

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Stuff in between the verses?  Really?  IH reaches a new low.

[sdelsolray]

...

And I agree, I guess what I am saying does seem ridiculous. 

 

A moment of clarity.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

I am aware of some of the facts you base your conclusion on.That's find. I respect that. I just see enough that tells me the science is not all settled.

 

And I agree, I guess what I am saying does seem ridiculous. 

 

The science is very well settled. How about providing some SCIENTIFIC references that show what you are saying?

 

"Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, Indiaand Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptileMesosaurus has been found in only localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.^[15]

Additional evidence for Pangaea is found in the geology of adjacent continents, including matching geological trends between the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. The polar ice cap of theCarboniferous Period covered the southern end of Pangaea. Glacial deposits, specifically till, of the same age and structure are found on many separate continents which would have been together in the continent of Pangaea.^[16]

Paleomagnetic study of apparent polar wandering paths also support the theory of a supercontinent. Geologists can determine the movement of continental plates by examining the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks; when rocks are formed, they take on the magnetic properties of the Earth and indicate in which direction the poles lie relative to the rock. Since the magnetic poles drift about the rotational pole with a period of only a few thousand years, measurements from numerous lavas spanning several thousand years are averaged to give an apparent mean polar position. Samples ofsedimentary rock and intrusive igneous rock have magnetic orientations that are typically an average of these "secular variations" in the orientation of Magnetic North because their magnetic fields were not formed in an instant, as is the case in a cooling lava. Magnetic differences between sample groups whose age varies by millions of years is due to a combination of true polar wander and the drifting of continents. The true polar wander component is identical for all samples, and can be removed, leaving geologists with the portion of this motion that shows continental drift and can be used to help reconstruct earlier continental positions.^[17]

The continuity of mountain chains provides further evidence for Pangaea. One example of this is the Appalachian Mountains chain which extends from the southeastern United States to the Caledonides of Ireland, Britain, Greenland, and Scandinavia.^[18]

"

 

#inbetweentheverses

[duderonomy]

Stuff. In between The Verses. 

 

So God did create evil then, because where else would it come from?  Is there more than one creator in the Universe?

[Ravenstar]

"I just see enough that tells me the science is not all settled"

 

No,  you don't.. because you don't know the science… it will never be 'settled' anyway. Science doesn't work like that.. it is always subject to revision because we are always learning more. BUT… that doesn't mean the basics will go away… we know enough to be fairly certain on many things, one of them is Pangaea. It's a fact, as is the dating of it.

 

Stuff just in making between shit the up verses

[moanareina]

Everyone: Can you see this? Have you thought about that? What about those happenings?

 

Ironhorse: Nananananaaaaaaaaaaaaa...I believe in God...Nananananaaaaaa...I don't care because...God...Nananananaaaaaa...I don't know...believe in Gooooooood!!!

 

Me: Eyeroll...lol...lmfao...oh, there are people who just chose to be stupid even though they claim to read all kinds of books...hahaha...

 

Kind of like:

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

"Either way, why would animals not be afraid of the humans who were killing them, either for their own or their gods' consumption, until after the flood?"

 

If you mean why did the animals willingly enter the ark, here's my answer.

 

I live in a rural area in the South. There is no way I could go out and round up two of a kind of all the

critters that live in the woods.

 

I believe God instructed the animals to enter the ark.

I did not mean, "Why did the animals willingly enter the ark?" and you know perfectly well that is not what I meant.  I meant, "Why were the animals not already afraid of the humans who were killing them."

 

You are being supremely disingenuous, TinPony; and I am nearing the end of my patience with you.  Stop playing games and answer the fucking question or you and I are done.

 

 

 

Before the flood God did not give humans permission to eat meat. Also, animals did have an instinctive fear of man.

 

After the flood, that changed:

 

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs."

 

~Genesis 9:1-3

 

1.  If man did not eat meat before the flood, how did Noah know which animals were "clean" and which were "unclean"?

 

2.  You made the statement that animals did have in instinctive fear of man (implying before the flood); then you made the contradictory statement that it changed after the flood when god put the fear of man into the animals.  If the animals already feared man before the flood, then it wasn't god who put that fear into them.

 

 

 

Answer One: Genesis 1:29 indicates that God’s plan was for humans and animals to subsist on a vegetarian diet. It is not known if all people before the flood followed this vegetarian diet. How did Noah know the difference is not given in the scriptures? One has to remember most Biblical narratives not contain every moment of the story. It is not a fully detailed narrative.

Evidently Noah did know.  After the flood Noah built an altar and offered a clean animal as a sacrifice (Gen. 8:20).

 

 

Answer Two- I made a mistake in writing that animals had a fear of man before the blood, I meant they did not have an instinctive fear. Reminds me to proofread better before I post.

 

 

 

How could Noah have known about clean and unclean animals before the Law was given? In Genesis 5:3 god states that "everything that moveth shall be food for you"[emphasis mine], but then contradicts himself in Genesis 8:20 when he tells Noah to bring clean and unclean animals aboard the Ark. Then we don't hear about this issue again until Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

 

The first issue I see here is that 'everything that moveth' implies that pre-flood people were eating MOVING things (animals) (lol to the vegetarian idea) then the knowledge of the cleanliness of a particular animal was ASSUMED by the later writers of the pre-flood population, who would have lived AFTER the Law code was given by Moses. This points to the problem of who wrote Genesis, and their purpose in attempting to convince their audience of the Law… before the law was. 

 

They really needed a better editor  

 

Not sure if I articulated that well.  

Did you simply ignore Ravenstar's post when you wrote yours?

[Ravenstar]

There is no way to reason with someone who believes in an actual Ark…

[mymistake]

Any way that we talk about the ark and flood being real has to invoke God's magic at every step because the story breaks the laws of physics all through it.

 

But if God is using magic the whole time that means God is doing extra work so that he can murder millions of kittens, puppies, cute bunnies, baby ducks, horses and on and on and on.  

 

We see from different Bible passages that God could smite somebody directly.  So God could have simply killed the "wicked" people without going through this whole ark nonsense.

 

And God could have avoided the whole thing by simply killing Adam and Eve before they had children then starting over by creating a new man and woman to populate the earth.

 

So God must have enjoyed killing innocent animals.

[Orbit]

The geology/zoology of the story is impossible. (see my posts)
The morality of the story is reprehensible.

The internal logic of the story is flawed (see mm above)

 

What's left? #betweentheverses

 

IH this thread has thoroughly and completely shot down the ark story. You are having to make stuff up to make sense of it.

Doesn't this tell you something? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Either way, why would animals not be afraid of the humans who were killing them, either for their own or their gods' consumption, until after the flood?"

 

If you mean why did the animals willingly enter the ark, here's my answer.

 

I live in a rural area in the South. There is no way I could go out and round up two of a kind of all the

critters that live in the woods.

 

I believe God instructed the animals to enter the ark.

I did not mean, "Why did the animals willingly enter the ark?" and you know perfectly well that is not what I meant. I meant, "Why were the animals not already afraid of the humans who were killing them."

 

You are being supremely disingenuous, TinPony; and I am nearing the end of my patience with you. Stop playing games and answer the fucking question or you and I are done.

 

Before the flood God did not give humans permission to eat meat. Also, animals did have an instinctive fear of man.

 

After the flood, that changed:

 

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs."

 

~Genesis 9:1-3

1. If man did not eat meat before the flood, how did Noah know which animals were "clean" and which were "unclean"?

 

2. You made the statement that animals did have in instinctive fear of man (implying before the flood); then you made the contradictory statement that it changed after the flood when god put the fear of man into the animals. If the animals already feared man before the flood, then it wasn't god who put that fear into them.

 

Answer One: Genesis 1:29 indicates that God’s plan was for humans and animals to subsist on a vegetarian diet. It is not known if all people before the flood followed this vegetarian diet. How did Noah know the difference is not given in the scriptures? One has to remember most Biblical narratives not contain every moment of the story. It is not a fully detailed narrative.

Evidently Noah did know. After the flood Noah built an altar and offered a clean animal as a sacrifice (Gen. 8:20).

 

 

Answer Two- I made a mistake in writing that animals had a fear of man before the blood, I meant they did not have an instinctive fear. Reminds me to proofread better before I post.

That's an interesting approach to the Bible "there's something not in it, so I'll pretend it's there". How did Noah get the kangaroos and penguins on the ark, and how did they get back to their respective continents afterwards?

 

Noah was not told to gather the animals. He was commanded only to build the Ark, large enough for all the animals, and simply receive the animals when they arrived. "And of every living thing of all flesh, . . . two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive" (Genesis 6:19-20).

 

"come unto thee" I believe says that God called the animals to the ark.

 

I believe the continents were all together as one large land mass before the flood.

Your pre-flood Pangea theory might be plausible if it were not for the fact that we know that continental drift has been occurring gradually over millions of years, not a few thousand as would have to be the case if one super continent existed before the supposed global flood. IH, you are smart enough to recognize this. What you just did there with your pre-flood Pangea theory is you plugged in an idea to make the rest of you beliefs fit together, an idea that we know via geology to be false. Religions do this all of the time with almost all of their beliefs; when faced with contraditictions or incoherence in their beliefs, they make up an idea in order to reconcile or fill the gaps. These ideas are logically possible on the surface, but when added to what we know in science, archeology, literary analysis, etc, it just can't be so. IH, you are also smart enough to comprehend that the Noah story, as an actual historical event, is patently, absurdly impossible. There are logical holes all over it! First and for most, it would have been absolutely impossible for a vessel with the dimensions of the ark to house two of every species of animal, let alone enough food and water to sustain them all. Even if you buy Ken Ham's "kinds" taxonomy (which is ill-defined and rediculous), that would still have been way too many animals to fit in such a vessel. Even if we moved the meaning of the word "kind" in scripture back on the taxonomy scale to more basic classifications of animals so that we could fit two of "every kind" in the ark, we are left with no possible way those basic "kinds" could have possibly evolved to their current level of complexity and diversity in only a few thousand years or even a million years! Just not possible!

 

Next, a vessel with the dimensions of the ark would not even be sea worthy! We know because people have tried! We have tried numerous times to build boats close to the dimensions of the ark, and even with iron and steel reenforcements, the boats still twist and buckle in relatively moderate sea conditions.

 

Let's also not forget that there is no evidence in the geological record of a global flood. Why do many civilizations have global flood legends? Easy, plausible explanation... They had all experienced floods, and probably catastrophic floods! All early civilizations settled near water sources. It is highly likely that they had all experienced catastrophic floods at some point or another. Imagine being one of those people with not much scientific understanding. It's not hard to imagine that they would have believed the whole world flooded during such a catastrophe. To them, their whole world did flood! They had no idea about other civilizations on the other side of a round earth that might not have been effected.

 

Take the Noah story as some kind of object lesson if you will (although I struggle to see how it could have been meant symbolically), but believing it actually happened is patently absurd!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Any way that we talk about the ark and flood being real has to invoke God's magic at every step because the story breaks the laws of physics all through it.

 

But if God is using magic the whole time that means God is doing extra work so that he can murder millions of kittens, puppies, cute bunnies, baby ducks, horses and on and on and on.  

 

We see from different Bible passages that God could smite somebody directly.  So God could have simply killed the "wicked" people without going through this whole ark nonsense.

 

And God could have avoided the whole thing by simply killing Adam and Eve before they had children then starting over by creating a new man and woman to populate the earth.

 

So God must have enjoyed killing innocent animals.

Animals were infected by the sin of Adam as was the whole earth.  There were no innocent animals.  The bunnies and kittens and puppies were already condemned.  They could only praise God that he gave them the relatively benign death by drowning and didn't fry them alive, as He will do when it's "the fire next time."

 

Praise God.

[Orbit]

The geology/zoology of the story is impossible. (see my posts)

The morality of the story is reprehensible.

The internal logic of the story is flawed (see mm above)

 

What's left? #betweentheverses

 

IH this thread has thoroughly and completely shot down the ark story. You are having to make stuff up to make sense of it.

Doesn't this tell you something? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

BUMP

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

The geology/zoology of the story is impossible. (see my posts)

The morality of the story is reprehensible.

The internal logic of the story is flawed (see mm above)

 

What's left? #betweentheverses

 

IH this thread has thoroughly and completely shot down the ark story. You are having to make stuff up to make sense of it.

Doesn't this tell you something? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

BUMP

It's a bad sign when you have to start pulling maybes out of your ass to even make potential sense of something.

[ironhorse]

 

 

The geology/zoology of the story is impossible. (see my posts)

The morality of the story is reprehensible.

The internal logic of the story is flawed (see mm above)

 

What's left? #betweentheverses

 

IH this thread has thoroughly and completely shot down the ark story. You are having to make stuff up to make sense of it.

Doesn't this tell you something? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

BUMP

It's a bad sign when you have to start pulling maybes out of your ass to even make potential sense of something.

 

 

It is your opinion and some others here that this thread has shot down completely the story of the ark.

That's fine. 

 

I will say though, I'm puzzled why some found my 'in between' the verses explanation stupid.

 

You can read a well written biography of a famous person alive today and in between the pages of that written account might be

many things we do not know about. 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

The geology/zoology of the story is impossible. (see my posts)

The morality of the story is reprehensible.

The internal logic of the story is flawed (see mm above)

 

What's left? #betweentheverses

 

IH this thread has thoroughly and completely shot down the ark story. You are having to make stuff up to make sense of it.

Doesn't this tell you something? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

BUMP

It's a bad sign when you have to start pulling maybes out of your ass to even make potential sense of something.

 

 

It is your opinion and some others here that this thread has shot down completely the story of the ark.

That's fine. 

 

I will say though, I'm puzzled why some found my 'in between' the verses explanation stupid.

 

You can read a well written biography of a famous person alive today and in between the pages of that written account might be

many things we do not know about. 

 

 

 

So Raptor Jesus is not stupid.  Raptor Jesus is serious!

[Ravenstar]

It is your opinion and some others here that this thread has shot down completely the story of the ark.

That's fine. 

 

Not an opinion…The flood story/Ark story is against the laws of physics and almost every other law that governs the universe… it's not possible. Hence, impossible.. unless, well…. magic.

 

Qui being cryptic please… ugh, "a well-written biography of a famous person…." just spit it out for goodness sake. There are a lot of things we don't know about, making shit up is called SPECULATION…. and that is not truth. Not even close.

 

SPECULATION… that's what 'in between the verses' is…. basically, pure fantasy, wishing and imagination based on one's world view and confirmation bias. If that's how you choose to deal with life that's your issue… most of us here prefer reality.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

The geology/zoology of the story is impossible. (see my posts)

The morality of the story is reprehensible.

The internal logic of the story is flawed (see mm above)

 

What's left? #betweentheverses

 

IH this thread has thoroughly and completely shot down the ark story. You are having to make stuff up to make sense of it.

Doesn't this tell you something? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

BUMP

It's a bad sign when you have to start pulling maybes out of your ass to even make potential sense of something.

It is your opinion and some others here that this thread has shot down completely the story of the ark.

That's fine.

 

I will say though, I'm puzzled why some found my 'in between' the verses explanation stupid.

 

You can read a well written biography of a famous person alive today and in between the pages of that written account might be

many things we do not know about.

Damn it IH! You just can't help yourself! It's not the possible shit that is not mentioned in the story that's the problem. The problem is that what is written is NOT POSSIBLE! It's a fable, a tall tale, mythological legend heavily influenced by earlier, similar legends. It's not a literally true historical account, because it cannot be.

[mymistake]

In between the verses Jesus Christ and the 12 disciples were flaming gay . . . not that there is anything wrong with that.  Oh the orgies they would have in between the verses . . . God thought it was divine.