And I would not disagree.
But it is a growing line of propaganda used to try and plug the huge & gaping holes in the historical and geographical time-lines as well as in Biblical literature itself.
Which goes to the point of the topic.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
How did Noah get Polar Bears and Kangaroos on and off the ark?
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
And I would not disagree.
But it is a growing line of propaganda used to try and plug the huge & gaping holes in the historical and geographical time-lines as well as in Biblical literature itself.
Which goes to the point of the topic.
Werbung:
Creationists are just christianity's version of the tin foil hat crowd. Not to be taken seriously. The're lucky the basis of their salvation is grace, not knowledge or understanding.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
They do represent a minority view. And yes they are lucky, as are we all, since everyone misunderstands at least something. That being said I have perused their websites and they have offered a few valuable insights here and there. When we are open to exploring many points of view we can draw on the best of what everyone has to offer to find the most consistent view for ourselves.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Two points: one- they are not doing a good job of plugging so called gaps. and two- the gaps are not existent. If you count biblical statements that are confirmed, biblical statements that are neither confimed nor disconfirmed and statements that are disconfirmed you will find that some fall into the first category, most fall into the second category and virtually none fall into the last.
sheldonking5
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4
the polars bears were actually regular bears they got put out for say "MF" everybody..they also had hair of wool that's what started the fight....
sheldonking5
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 4
After giving this more thought I've concluded the polar bears were regular bears due to the fact that they were bleached for looking at the pandas....
The bible is the single most influential book of western culture and civilization. No other book even comes close. The greatest minds of our civilization have found truths in it that make puny all other truths.
In pointing out apparent inconsistencies and/or impossibilities, you attempt to belittle a work that is much greater than all of us. I don't doubt the intellect of many of you, but your ignorance makes me a bit sad.
As the Preacher (Solomon) put it in the book of Ecclesiastes "Vanity of Vanities, all is Vanity" Ecc. ch 1 v 2
In pointing out apparent inconsistencies and/or impossibilities, you attempt to belittle a work that is much greater than all of us. I don't doubt the intellect of many of you, but your ignorance makes me a bit sad.
As the Preacher (Solomon) put it in the book of Ecclesiastes "Vanity of Vanities, all is Vanity" Ecc. ch 1 v 2
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Evolutionists claim that polar bears evolved maybe 100,000 thousand years ago from the brown bear. There is no date on when the ark had it's voyage. There is no reason that polar bears even had to be on the ark.
The brown bear evolved about 300,000 to 400,000 years ago from the sun bear. There is still no date for the ark. There is no reason to think that the brown bear was on the ark.
If we take the most reasonable interpretation that the flood was large but local and that it happened in an unkown part of the world at an unknown time we don't even know what kind of bears may or may not have lived around there.
"...If we take the most reasonable interpretation that the flood was large but local...", in that case, there would be no reason to have two of each animal on an ark...if all the animals drowned in a local flood, animals outside the local area would re-inhabit that local area after the flood waters subsided.
If the trouble was taken to save animals for reintroduction, the flood (if it took place at all), would not logically been a local event.
It seems that the most reasonable interpretation of the supposed event is, that it did not really happen.
Just as the gullibility of bible thumpers makes those who actually use critical thinking and question things sad.
"...Greatest minds of our civilization...", Jerry Falwell?, Pat (pray the hurricane away) Robertson?
"Your rightiousnes are as filthy rags."
"Judge not least you be judged."
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Aren't you assuming that the main purpose of having the animals on the ark was for re-introduction? To avoid their extinction? The animals may have only existed in the local area at that time and their extinction may have been in question? But What if their extinction was never in question? What if the ark was a real event that happened to symbolize another event? What if the Ark of Noah was a type for the Ark of the Convenent? In this case the animals would have been a type for the Law. The covenent between Noah and God was something that needed to be kept alive and keeping the animals alive symbolized that God kept the covenent alive. The passage even says:
"But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21"
It seems to link the life of the animals with the covenent.
Or it could be that the whole passage did not really happen (as you say) but was written purely as a symbol? The bible is a religious book much more than a history book after all. But so far I do not think that the evidence from the passage is strong enough that we need to take it symbolically rather than literally. Not that taking it symbolically would change the Christian message in any way. At last not until people started taking every bit of the book symbolically (which some do) and this of course is why there is such a strong resistance to just jumping on the non-literal bandwagon.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I do not think there is anything wrong with being a critical thinker and questioning things. But that is not what Dawkins's man was doing. He really was just trying to make any sort of dig he could find (and without doing much homework).
No, I don't consider Falwell, Robertson, or Hagee great minds. I do consider Milton, Newton, and Einstein great minds.
Why does this mental image of a bunch of Lilliputions trying to bind Gulliver keep popping into my head?
"The ___________ is the single most influential book of western culture and civilization. No other book even comes close. The greatest minds of our civilization have found truths in it that make puny all other truths."
1. Das Capital
2. Mien Kampf
3. The Koran
4. The Thoughts of Mao
5. The Torah
6. The Origin of the Species
7. The Bible
Just insert the name of the book that in your opinion meets the above criteria. You will find that it is just one of many possibilities, dependent upon your orientation, location, culture, and opinion. The Bible being such is just your opinion.
Werbung:
It is an influential book, no doubt about it, and has many gems of wisdom hidden in its pages, ready to be dug out and used.
However, it is also a collection of ancient writings that were written down when most people were illiterate and had experiences limited to a subsistence farm within a few miles of the place of their birth and death. Those writings were done in languages that are now extinct for the most part, and translated into Latin, then into modern languages. Many tell stories that were handed down by word of mouth for decades before being written down.
It simply is not rational to think that those writings are to be interpreted literally. Here is why:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/laura.htm