Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Bizarre. Now we have a new set of beliefs that say that the Law of Leviticus don't apply to good Christians, but they apply to everyone else...

I assume that means that Christians can rape someone without having to buy them, be gay and even have a tattoo. Also to covet as many oxes as they wish...

 

[huskeR32]

Its not a cop out or ignoring.
I'm not under the law anymore.
I accepted and received the full pardon.
That's the whole point.

So, accepting salvation means the OT no longer applies to you? Am I following you correctly?

Accept Jesus, and you can do whatever the OT says not to do. Like murder.

Don't accept Jesus, and you're still going to hell for, say, eating shrimp, or wearing polyester?

The law is the standard by which everyone is judged.
And every person is guilty under the law.
If you wish to assume you are wiser and more righteous than God, go ahead.
But I seriously doubt you will prevail.

You're the one proclaiming to know exactly when/how/to whom the OT applies. You really want to talk about people assuming they're wiser than god?

Just as the civil justice system isolates the guilty from the general population,
at the appointed time those who reject the pardon will be isolated.

Gotta say, I couldn't be happier about which side of that divide I'll be on.

 

[MustangManiac]

Bizarre. Now we have a new set of beliefs that say that the Law of Leviticus don't apply to good Christians, but they apply to everyone else...

I assume that means that Christians can rape someone without having to buy them, be gay and even have a tattoo. Also to covet as many oxes as they wish...

Nothing new about that, hasn't there always been a set of rules for "us" and another set for "them", no matter who us or them are throughout history?

 

[squadops]

While religion might shape a persons social ideals, it should never be used to argue any particular social stance. Interesting enough, we hear the difference between spirit and flesh often yet some are willing to muddle that line if there is activity of another party they just don't like. That's where most of the conflict starts, something harmful to society, immoral, or violating, better have negative attributes shown outside of religious text.

 

[Danoff]

Its not a cop out or ignoring.
I'm not under the law anymore.
I accepted and received the full pardon.
That's the whole point.

I totally get that. You're not bound by the OT rules, got it. 100%.

As I said before, your God is the same God as the one in the OT. The one that wiped out humanity with a flood. The one that said rapists should marry their victims. The one that said stone the infidels. The one that said eating shellfish was a sin.

Your God is that God. Totally 100% bat-stuff insane with violence. Totally 100% immoral and drunk with power. Sure maybe he's toned down a bit, but you have to come to terms with the fact that all of those things were his crazy ideas. Ideas that caused incredible pain and suffering for no reason.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Who? The same God that tells you to stone people to death? The same God that sends people to hell for wearing polyester? The same God that has allowed several genocides to occur? The same god that permits rape?

I don't see that as a moral God at all.

Under the law, yes it's "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
But the execution of the law was a temporary measure to again preserve the plan.
Or as it is referred to, "that which is perfect is come".
Quite frankly, at that time there was no other remedy available to accomplish the task.
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the term, "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump".
Even under the law the jews were sentenced by God, to go into captivity more than once under heathen nations for their sin, where they were enslaved and many executed, so it was not a double standard for them.

Obviously the law was not a final solution, nor was it meant to be.
The morality problem isn't with God, but with man.
The law merely facilitated the plan to fruition.
You must first change the heart of man before you can change anything.
As I've said before, it is very easy to render judgements now under the benefit of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence.

As I said before, your God is the same God as the one in the OT. The one that wiped out humanity with a flood.

Gen 6:

4 There were giants on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination andintention of all human thinking was only evil continually.

6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.

7 So the Lord said, I will destroy, blot out, and wipe away mankind, whom I have created from the face of the ground—not only man, [but] the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air—for it grieves Me and makes Me regretful that I have made them.


Your assessment on motive takes Monday morning quarterbacking to a whole new level.
Hmmm, sounds pretty hopeless.

So what is your more righteous solution Danoff?

BTW you might take note, you would not be here if not for the plan he chose.
Of couse all of this is an assumption for you.

The one that said rapists should marry their victims. The one that said stone the infidels. The one that said eating shellfish was a sin.

Again stopgap measures.

Your God is that God. Totally 100% bat-stuff insane with violence. Totally 100% immoral and drunk with power. Sure maybe he's toned down a bit, but you have to come to terms with the fact that all of those things were his crazy ideas. Ideas that caused incredible pain and suffering for no reason.

To the contrary, as I've already pointed out, it was for the greatest of reasons from which myself and countless others are beneficiaries.
Actually God was just stuck having to deal with 100% hard hearted mankind.
Nothing has changed in that respect.

So, accepting salvation means the OT no longer applies to you? Am I following you correctly?

Yes and no.
I am not under the levitical laws the Jews were charged with keeping.(Dietary,feasts, etc.)
I am still under respect and adherance to the ten commandments.
(Under the control and influence of the Holy Spirit one would not break them anyway.
In the event you were overtaken and broke them, you may escape hell, but the other consequences would likely be more severe).
These things are discussed in the new testament.

Accept Jesus, and you can do whatever the OT says not to do. Like murder.

No, God forbid.

Don't accept Jesus, and you're still going to hell for, say, eating shrimp, or wearing polyester?

It doesn't matter what you do or don't do, you cannot be found innocent and you have no pardon.
So yes according to the Bible you will end up in hell.

You're the one proclaiming to know exactly when/how/to whom the OT applies. You really want to talk about people assuming they're wiser than god?

My comment was in reply to his comments judging God's actions as injustices.
Being a mere mortal, I do not think it wise to judge God's actions as unjust.

Gotta say, I couldn't be happier about which side of that divide I'll be on.

That opinion might be a tad premature, but it's your choice.

 

[dylansan]

It still baffles me that apparently being unconvinced of something makes me deserving of infinite torture for eternity.

 

[Danoff]

Your assessment on motive takes Monday morning quarterbacking to a whole new level.
Hmmm, sounds pretty hopeless.

Does it? Sounds to me like God screwed up (thought that was impossible?), and decided to blame us for his mistakes. We didn't turn out like he wanted so he wiped us all out.

So what is your more righteous solution Danoff?

He should flick his finger and make mankind good. Or even make them disappear. A flood is so... barbaric.

Again stopgap measures.

Yea... totally explains it.

To the contrary, as I've already pointed out, it was for the greatest of reasons from which myself and countless others are beneficiaries.

Actually God was just stuck having to deal with 100% hard hearted mankind.
Nothing has changed in that respect.

Genocide often accomplishes nothing it seems.

 

[Pollux458]

Does it? Sounds to me like God screwed up (thought that was impossible?), and decided to blame us for his mistakes. We didn't turn out like he wanted so he wiped us all out.

He didn't screw up, he gave man a choice (little thing called freewill), going back to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given one rule: don't eat of the tree of good and evil, what did they do - eat from the tree of good and evil. He could have just as easily stopped them and made them do his will, but he didn't want robots walking around worshiping him, he wanted man to worship him of their own accord. When he saw that only Noah and his family where the only humans abiding by his laws he then decided that the best way to rid the world of man's evil was to cause a flood to destroy everything. But that still wasn't the real end for the men of that time, because Noah still had to build the ark - and it took about 130 years to do so - so the rest of his family would have most likely spent that time preaching and warning the other people of the flood and of how they would die lest they turn and follow god's will. But man's arrogance continued as did God's flood.

Genocide often accomplishes nothing it seems.

In this case it accomplished ridding the world of evil for a time, but yes it seems that even after the flood people have reverted to disobeying his will. Thankfully he promised never to flood the entire world ever again, otherwise we might be sitting here with this technology and knowledge of the universe.

 

[Aphelion]

He didn't screw up, he gave man a choice (little thing called freewill), going back to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given one rule: don't eat of the tree of good and evil, what did they do - eat from the tree of good and evil. He could have just as easily stopped them and made them do his will, but he didn't want robots walking around worshiping him, he wanted man to worship him of their own accord. When he saw that only Noah and his family where the only humans abiding by his laws he then decided that the best way to rid the world of man's evil was to cause a flood to destroy everything. But that still wasn't the real end for the men of that time, because Noah still had to build the ark - and it took about 130 years to do so - so the rest of his family would have most likely spent that time preaching and warning the other people of the flood and of how they would die lest they turn and follow god's will. But man's arrogance continued as did God's flood.

One hole in this view though... it could just have been a children tale or some-such, similar to the likes of 'little red riding hood' or anything like that; a cautionary tale about mans arrogance, instead of actually a true story. And it is much easier to believe the former, if you ask me.

 

[Imari]

He didn't screw up, he gave man a choice (little thing called freewill), going back to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given one rule: don't eat of the tree of good and evil, what did they do - eat from the tree of good and evil. He could have just as easily stopped them and made them do his will, but he didn't want robots walking around worshiping him, he wanted man to worship him of their own accord. When he saw that only Noah and his family where the only humans abiding by his laws he then decided that the best way to rid the world of man's evil was to cause a flood to destroy everything. But that still wasn't the real end for the men of that time, because Noah still had to build the ark - and it took about 130 years to do so - so the rest of his family would have most likely spent that time preaching and warning the other people of the flood and of how they would die lest they turn and follow god's will. But man's arrogance continued as did God's flood.

I love how people can say this stuff with a straight face like it actually happened. 130 years to build a ship? Do tell.

 

[mustafur]

I love how people can say this stuff with a straight face like it actually happened. 130 years to build a ship? Do tell.

People who are not white or atleast of different races? That also makes no sense going by bible logic.

 

[Scaff]

He didn't screw up, he gave man a choice (little thing called freewill), going back to the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were given one rule: don't eat of the tree of good and evil, what did they do - eat from the tree of good and evil. He could have just as easily stopped them and made them do his will, but he didn't want robots walking around worshiping him, he wanted man to worship him of their own accord. When he saw that only Noah and his family where the only humans abiding by his laws he then decided that the best way to rid the world of man's evil was to cause a flood to destroy everything. But that still wasn't the real end for the men of that time, because Noah still had to build the ark - and it took about 130 years to do so - so the rest of his family would have most likely spent that time preaching and warning the other people of the flood and of how they would die lest they turn and follow god's will. But man's arrogance continued as did God's flood.

In this case it accomplished ridding the world of evil for a time, but yes it seems that even after the flood people have reverted to disobeying his will. Thankfully he promised never to flood the entire world ever again, otherwise we might be sitting here with this technology and knowledge of the universe.

Can you explain to me then how the whole flood myth appears, almost word for word, in a much older religion?

Can you also explain why not a single piece of evidence for a global flood exists?

Can you explain to me how he got them on board, given that we know the dimensions and its not even close to being big enough?

See it seems far more likely that a devastating local flood got turned into a myth of the gods being angry and that got 'borrowed' by Judaism when it went solo.

 

[Aphelion]

See it seems far more likely that a devastating local flood got turned into a myth of the gods being angry and that got 'borrowed' by Judaism when it went solo.

And that's generally what i think about the bible. Not much of it is very believable.

 

[niky]

Yep, hence now you know that there are NO perfect men on earth. The men God chooses is perfectly up to God.
Lean not onto your own understanding, unless you freely and happily prefer doing your own thing, of which you are entitled to.
The absolute will of God is the Cross. Everyone of those men, separated by centuries, all wrote about it, and in great detail. You see, only God knows that, and can use these men, so allow us to know He is there, and His promises.
You wouldn't know that, because you wilfully reject Him, which off course was foretold, even 700 years before Christ.

So I should not lean upon my own imperfect understanding, but the imperfect understanding of other imperfect men because they tell me that they have been chosen to deliver the word of God?

-

Wait a minute...

-

Also, no... nobody actually prophesized a crucifixion. Closest I can find is something about dogs piercing hands and feet, and something about a sword.

Ignoring the fact, of course, that the evidence of the fulfillment of the prophecies comes from the words of men who were not alive at the time of Jesus, copied second- and third-hand and translated from the original into Greek, and then into the form we know today.

Of course, your Gospels are the ones accepted by the Church Hierarchy, but are not the original gospels, and are not the only ones, either...

-

I don't reject Jesus per se. I simply reject the idea that a third-hand source of knowledge that cannot be corroborated through archaeological evidence or via writers other than the single source from whom the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were copied... I reject the idea that this is the only legitimate source for data regarding the man known as Jesus Christ, and that they are perfect and beyond question. Because, again, they are written, translated and edited by...

Imperfect men.

 

[DCP]

And yet you have still to cite them in the NT, not in an 'I interpret this in this way' manner, but the ten commandments in the NT.


How do you know it was a cross?

The Romans didn't exclusively use the cross for crucifixion, it was also done on a Y shape, a T shape and on a pole (hands and arms overhead).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Cross_shape

You see all the men you cite as evidence for this, not one of them was present at the time and they often contradict each other (did anyone help Jesus carry the cross or not - even on that they don't agree).

Once again, you cannot understand the point of the Cross, if you don't believe in the God of the Bible.
It's the Cross in the natural, because the witnesses say it was.
Like I said, it's not the physical Y or Cross. You can even call it a tree if you want. You still miss the point.
Do you know, what is the purpose of the Cross in Spirit, for the world? Do you know what transpired on the Cross in Spirit?

I'll sort out the commandments for you soon. Need to face the music for resigning...

So how about actually reading the bible rather than cherry picking sentences which appear to mostly not contradict your pre-conceived notions. Or is reading an activity which is completely off the table for you? Even if the book in question is a Christian bible?

I have, but thankfully, knew about Christ before that, although I didn't understand fully, until rescued while drowning in my sins, yes even then, He still shed His blood for me. My body is dying, but I'll always be Alive. Death has no hold on me. Whom the Son sets free, oh he is free indeed.

 

[Scaff]

Once again, you cannot understand the point of the Cross, if you don't believe in the God of the Bible.
It's the Cross in the natural, because the witnesses say it was.

You mean the witnesses who were not present and can't agree on the story?

Like I said, it's not the physical Y or Cross. You can even call it a tree if you want. You still miss the point.
Do you know, what is the purpose of the Cross in Spirit, for the world? Do you know what transpired on the Cross in Spirit?

I'm well aware that the cross has a spiritual meaning, that however is not what I was asking you about. I'm asking you about the claim physical incident.

I'll sort out the commandments for you soon. Need to face the music for resigning...

So its not a nice easy list then?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Does it? Sounds to me like God screwed up (thought that was impossible?), and decided to blame us for his mistakes. We didn't turn out like he wanted so he wiped us all out.

I don't believe so.
His mistakes? Hardly. You sound just like Adam. The woman you gave me, it was her fault.
No doubt, things did take a catastrophic turn for the worse.
He did not wipe us all out but decided to preserve a small group to continue with.

He should flick his finger and make mankind good. Or even make them disappear. A flood is so... barbaric.

Ahh here we go.
Tempting I'm sure.
But would that have actually been just?
Or just an easy way out?
Yes the cost was shockingly and horrifyingly too high.
And afterward the toll would continue to mount and still does to this day.
But as high as it is, such is the reality of the price of dominion and autonomy.
Otherwise there is no real value in anything. Everything is just an exercise in futility.
There would have been no reason to continue.
I contend that even though the price was astronomically high, it was the just course.
For therein autonomy was preserved, not revoked, and a better choice could eventually be offered.

Yea... totally explains it.

I must admit it does appear to be a classic case of the end justifying the means.
And in fact it actually does.

Genocide often accomplishes nothing it seems.

It accomplished what was critically necessary at the time, for the preservation of autonomy and the redemptive plan.

 

[jimipitbull]

I don't believe so.
His mistakes? Hardly. You sound just like Adam. The woman you gave me, it was her fault.
No doubt, things did take a catastrophic turn for the worse.
He did not wipe us all out but decided to preserve a small group to continue with.



Ahh here we go.
Tempting I'm sure.
But would that have actually been just?
Or just an easy way out?
Yes the cost was shockingly and horrifyingly too high.
And afterward the toll would continue to mount and still does to this day.
But as high as it is, such is the reality of the price of dominion and autonomy.
Otherwise there is no real value in anything. Everything is just an exercise in futility.
There would have been no reason to continue.
I contend that even though the price was astronomically high, it was the just course.
For therein autonomy was preserved, not revoked, and a better choice could eventually be offered.


I must admit it does appear to be a classic case of the end justifying the means.
And in fact it actually does.



It accomplished what was critically necessary at the time, for the preservation of autonomy and the redemptive plan.

Sounds like he was trying to establish the christian version of a worldwide caliphate.

 

[The McMerc]

Ahh here we go.
Tempting I'm sure.
But would that have actually been just?
Or just an easy way out?
Yes the cost was shockingly and horrifyingly too high.
And afterward the toll would continue to mount and still does to this day.
But as high as it is, such is the reality of the price of dominion and autonomy.
Otherwise there is no real value in anything. Everything is just an exercise in futility.
There would have been no reason to continue.
I contend that even though the price was astronomically high, it was the just course.
For therein autonomy was preserved, not revoked, and a better choice could eventually be offered.

So basically you're justifying the supposed deaths of countless amounts of people because the only other option was the "easy way out". Are you actually serious? You're justifying a massacre and condemning a peaceful resolution?

 

[DQuaN]

I don't believe so.
His mistakes? Hardly. You sound just like Adam. The woman you gave me, it was her fault.
No doubt, things did take a catastrophic turn for the worse.
He did not wipe us all out but decided to preserve a small group to continue with.



Ahh here we go.
Tempting I'm sure.
But would that have actually been just?
Or just an easy way out?
Yes the cost was shockingly and horrifyingly too high.
And afterward the toll would continue to mount and still does to this day.
But as high as it is, such is the reality of the price of dominion and autonomy.
Otherwise there is no real value in anything. Everything is just an exercise in futility.
There would have been no reason to continue.
I contend that even though the price was astronomically high, it was the just course.
For therein autonomy was preserved, not revoked, and a better choice could eventually be offered.


I must admit it does appear to be a classic case of the end justifying the means.
And in fact it actually does.



It accomplished what was critically necessary at the time, for the preservation of autonomy and the redemptive plan.

If we go back to this...

Can you explain to me then how the whole flood myth appears, almost word for word, in a much older religion?

Can you also explain why not a single piece of evidence for a global flood exists?

Can you explain to me how he got them on board, given that we know the dimensions and its not even close to being big enough?

See it seems far more likely that a devastating local flood got turned into a myth of the gods being angry and that got 'borrowed' by Judaism when it went solo.

We find that you didn't answer any of his questions (what a surprise).

I know why though. Because it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

 

[squadops]

Maybe @Pollux458 will answer.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I don't reject Jesus per se. I simply reject the idea that a third-hand source of knowledge that cannot be corroborated through archaeological evidence or via writers other than the single source from whom the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were copied... I reject the idea that this is the only legitimate source for data regarding the man known as Jesus Christ, and that they are perfect and beyond question. Because, again, they are written, translated and edited by...

Imperfect men.

Even so, and to a degree I cannot argue with your reasoning.

But let me ask you this:
If the God of the Bible is who he claims to be, with all the power and attributes he says he has,
do you think he could author a Book and have it penned by "imperfect men" and yet still get his point across?

So basically you're justifying the supposed deaths of countless amounts of people because the only other option was the "easy way out". Are you actually serious? You're justifying a massacre and condemning a peaceful resolution?

I don't believe you grasp the gravity of the situation.
There was no other resolution available, peaceful or otherwise, and still preserve autonomy.

Perhaps I should have added these verses as well:

Gen 6:
11 The earth was depraved and putrid in God’s sight, and the land was filled with violence (desecration, infringement, outrage, assault, and lust for power).

12 And God looked upon the world and saw how degenerate, debased, and vicious it was, for all humanity had corrupted their way upon the earth and lost their true direction.

13 God said to Noah, I intend to make an end of all flesh, for through men the land is filled with violence; and behold, I will destroy them and the land.

 

[GBO Possum]

So basically you're justifying the supposed deaths of countless amounts of people because the only other option was the "easy way out". Are you actually serious? You're justifying a massacre and condemning a peaceful resolution?

Of course. The bible is full of mindless violence, see THIS LINK. Mindless violence is a great formula for attracting readers. That's why worldwide floods are so popular in fiction worldwide - LINK.

Fortunately for us, the story of the flood, being full of preposterous absurdities, is demonstrably fiction. Even though it's poor fiction, it still has appeal to some. In my opinion, the first two "Terminator" movies did a better job of using the theme. The requirement for suspension of disbelief is placed front and center with time travel. If you accept that one premise, the rest flows quite well. The flood story has just too many inconsistencies and departures from reality.

 

[Pollux458]

I love how people can say this stuff with a straight face like it actually happened. 130 years to build a ship? Do tell.

Well it did need to accompany for two off every single animal in the world and with only three sons to help him build it construction would have taken a little while.
This first part of this website gives a pretty accurate description of the size (because in the bible the units they use for measuring is cubits - which on average is the length of grown males arm- the conversion could be a bit off).
As for the ageing thing I have absolutely no idea, its he lived to the ripe old age of 950 but I have no idea people back then had an extended lifetime. Honestly I'm only 15 so my knowledge of the bible has its limits at the moment.

Can you also explain why not a single piece of evidence for a global flood exists?

Actually they have several pieces of evidence linked here but most it isn't solid evidence.

Can you explain to me how he got them on board, given that we know the dimensions and its not even close to being big enough?

Well no I can't explain how they managed to get that amount of animals on board, I don't see how you can make that assumption - how do you know it wasn't big enough, keeping in mind it was only two of each animal, they didn't shove a flock of sheep in.

See it seems far more likely that a devastating local flood got turned into a myth of the gods being angry and that got 'borrowed' by Judaism when it went solo.

We all have our doubts, speculations and beliefs, it's just about how much you take to heart- I mean I'm not sure whether I believe that the whole earth was covered by the flood it could have just been the lower to mid areas off the world, honestly one question that I want answered myself is Where did all that water come from - although (lol answering my own question here) but there is a lot of water stored underground but then that raises the question how did that water get out? As I stated earlier my knowledge and understanding of the bible has its limits and I'm no where near able to explain even half the things that my superiors can.

 

[GBO Possum]

Even so, and to a degree I cannot argue with your reasoning.

But let me ask you this:
If the God of the Bible is who he claims to be, with all the power and attributes he says he has,
do you think he could author a Book and have it penned by "imperfect men" and yet still get his point across?

But let me ask you this:
If the God of the Bible is who he claims to be, with all the power and attributes he says he has,
don't you think he could author a Book and have it be internally consistent and non-contradictory?

And if he had truly "got his point across", how come there are so many competing gods and religions? The bible has succeeded in being printed in vast numbers, however there are only a very few who have actually read it cover to cover. Often, reading it "cover to cover" is a good way to find reasons to reject it.

Most bible-followers require someone to cherry pick for them. Since the cherry pickers all put their own spin on the cherries, you see religions splinter and diverge, leading to God-induced violence.

 

[Scaff]

Actually they have several pieces of evidence linked here but most it isn't solid evidence.

Oh dear should have seen that coming. Your source is renowned for the poor quality of its material, none of which is peer reviewed and is self sourcing.

Lets try peer reviewed evidence that doesn't use itself as a source (as AiG does).

Well no I can't explain how they managed to get that amount of animals on board, I don't see how you can make that assumption - how do you know it wasn't big enough, keeping in mind it was only two of each animal, they didn't shove a flock of sheep in.

8.7 Million species exist on earth, the ark would have an internal volume of approx 1,518,000 cubic feet, which gives an average of 0.17 cubic feet per species, but we have two of each so its actually 0.08 cubic feet per animal (however this would start to grow as they ate each other).

Not even close enough without looking at space for food and water.

We all have our doubts, speculations and beliefs, it's just about how much you take to heart- I mean I'm not sure whether I believe that the whole earth was covered by the flood it could have just been the lower to mid areas off the world, honestly one question that I want answered myself is Where did all that water come from - although (lol answering my own question here) but there is a lot of water stored underground but then that raises the question how did that water get out? As I stated earlier my knowledge and understanding of the bible has its limits and I'm no where near able to explain even half the things that my superiors can.

Funny how you don't address the fact (and it is) that the story exists in religions earlier than Judaism?

 

[DQuaN]

Well no I can't explain how they managed to get that amount of animals on board, I don't see how you can make that assumption - how do you know it wasn't big enough, keeping in mind it was only two of each animal, they didn't shove a flock of sheep in.

There are 8.7 MILLION species in the world. It doesn't matter how big they say it is, it wouldn't be big enough. We don't have the technology NOW to build a boat that big!

Also, how did they get the Lions from Africa and Tigers from Asia? The Penguins from the South Pole and Polar Bears from the North?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Well it did need to accompany for two off every single animal in the world and with only three sons to help him build it construction would have taken a little while.
This first part of this website gives a pretty accurate description of the size (because in the bible the units they use for measuring is cubits - which on average is the length of grown males arm- the conversion could be a bit off).

I quickly googled the longest wooden boats ever made, as far as we know, and the longest was 180ft, your link says the ark was 450ft. Ignoring the fact that modern day engineers think a wooden boat that size would just break up, do you think it's likely that one man 1,000s of years ago was able to make a boat over double the size that anyone's ever made?

As for the ageing thing I have absolutely no idea, its he lived to the ripe old age of 950 but I have no idea people back then had an extended lifetime. Honestly I'm only 15 so my knowledge of the bible has its limits at the moment.

They would probably be lucky to live to 30/40 years old, you would need supernatural powers to live to 950, would explain the boat I suppose, but then it's not anymore believable than Harry Potter.

Well no I can't explain how they managed to get that amount of animals on board, I don't see how you can make that assumption - how do you know it wasn't big enough, keeping in mind it was only two of each animal, they didn't shove a flock of sheep in.

Only 2 of each animal? Only? Another quick google tells me that there are 1.5 million different species of animals that we've discovered, and that there's estimates for there being anywhere between 2-50 million in total. So, assuming there were the same number of species then as there are now to make life easier, he would of had at least 4 million animals on board, ranging from insects to elephants. He would also have needed years of food on board for each on of them, so how do you suppose to fit that on a 450ft boat?

My numbers might be a little off, on my phone and can't be bothered to look for other sources, but they are most likely accurate enough for me to make my point.

 

[GBO Possum]

@Pollux458 - consider the impact of a flood on your country. Australia would have been the first continent to disappear under the waves. Mount Arrarat is more than twice as high as "Kozzie".

Yet all those special Australasian animals, birds and insects survived. If this flood story actually happened, then consider these few points.

• How would you transport a koala pair all that way, with a supply of its special gum leaves? Even Google Maps can't provide directions!
• Noah's family would have needed a fleet of arks to visit Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Antarctica, New Guinea, the Galápagos Islands, Fiji, Hawaii...........
• Don't you think that the authors of the flood story would have thought to mention the strangeness of kangaroos and platypuses aboard the ark? Or moas or emus? Did nobody in Noah's family even notice?
• How did they get all those special critters back to their home territory? Imagine the requirement for record keeping!
• Why is there no evidence of flooding of this nature in Australia?
• How did the Australian flora survive being covered by thousands of feet of water for, what was it, a year? No light or oxygen combined with incredible water pressure? Much of your flora is incredibly sensitive to environmental change.
• Finally, think about the impact of the inbreeding imposed by reducing all animal and insect species to just one mating pair!

There are just far too many ways we have to suspend our disbelief in order to swallow this story