Did the story of Noah's ark really happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

If you don't like the video skip to the last 10 seconds - its the best part.

Edit: I mean the last 30 seconds, starting at 5:52

how are we supposed to know?... it could have, when the black sea flooded, and supposedly they've found alot of wood at the top of a mountain in turkey...but like most everything else in the bible, there's little or no proof...

but i will say this, it is one of the only stories in the bible that fits with the evidence of science...in my opinion, of course..

I'm technically unable to watch the video because of a dial-up connection. But it's truly a moot point.

From my perspective the question of a "Great Flood" that was required to flood out the bulk of God's creation is an oxymoronic notion in its own right.

Even if such an event had actually taken place all it would show is that our creator is a completely inept baffoon. It would be a sign of a creator who created a creation that got so far out of hand that he basically had to destroy it and start over over again (even using the same seeds from the previously corrupt creation).

so many thoughts run through my mind in light of such fables.

Why would an all-wise creator allow things to get that far out of control in the first place?

Why is the creator's creation becoming so hopelessly corrupt in the first place?

And finally, why would such a creator not just trash the whole project and start over from scratch? Why try to salavage the experiment by only saving a handful of the same human species?

Would this be a laziness on the part of the creator? Is it too much trouble to start a brand new creation?

Finally, how many creations has this creator actually gone through? The creator is said to be eternal. Well if that's true, then the creator must have created infinitely many world prior to having created the Earth and humans.

Thus if the creator is enternal and he's still screwing things up, that doesn't say much for his abilities, IMHO.

So to the question, "Did the flood happen or not?"

I can only reply. Let's hope not, because if it did that can only mean that we have been created by a truly inept creator that can't seem to get things right even after infinitely many tries.

they have found evidence that the black sea flooded about the same time frame as the bible says it. there are whole villages underwater, and in that era, it would have seemed like the whole world was flooding, they wouldn't have known any different.

Not exactly. God can NOT be accounted for the actions idividuals take in their lives. Weather it's good or evil actions they do God and Satan can NOT be accounted for it. The only one's accounted for any actions in their lives is ourselves. We choose to do or not to do on our own. That is what free will is.

So as you can see here it wasn't anyone's fault but the world's fault for the way it was and needed to be flooded out. Kinda like how the world is going now. Hardly anyone is even polite to anyone anymore, especially to a stranger.

I'm pretty sure I saw that documentary.

That I wouldn't doubt in the least.

In other words, the idea that the actual story of the flood came from an actual local flood is very believable to me. I can easily see where such an event would be the spark of such stories.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not about who is at fault. It's about an intervening God who waits until things are that drastically out of control to intervene.

And also about a supposedly "all-wise" God who apparently can't raise his children any better than a completely irresponsible partent who just leaves his children alone whilst he plays "Hide and seek" until they get into so much trouble on their own that he has to kill them all.



Again, it's not about placing blame or fault.

Also, whether or not people are polite may depend on where you live, or even on your own perceptions of your surroundings. Where I live people are very polite to each other.

"I think you're missing the point here. It's not about who is at fault. It's about an intervening God who waits until things are that drastically out of control to intervene."

No i'm not missing the point, you don't know what intervene means. Intervening would involve literally controlling someone and or taking away our free will in one way or other. The world is God's creation thus meaning God can do what ever he wants, weather that is flooding it, making into a big droupt, or even blowing the sucker up. It is his to do with whatever he wants. And none of this would be taking away anyone's free will, thus not intervening.

Hey, they forgot the part about how much lumber it would have taken to build the ark, and how much pitch. Can you imagine the manual labor involved in all the tongue and goove work? What about all the nails, where would the metal come from? And even if all the raw material was within a 20 mile radius of the building site how long would it take a few men (and women) to refine the raw materials and build the ark?

And the food for the ark...how big was the nearest village? And if the people were really all that bad, how eager would they be to donate many tons of food to be stored on an ark they scoffed at? That's assuming, of course, that there would even be that much food in excess. In that world, getting enough food for your own family was a full time job.

So I agree, there are only two possibilities, the modern day version of the flood story, never happened -- OR -- it was magic.

And if it was magic... as the little angel said... what the F.. is wrong with you. Why not just use magic to rid the world of all the elements you don't want there????

But what if the flood story is a parable only? What moral does the parable teach to those who read it? If it's not true what can the logical mind deduce from that story? (answer = read from beginning of this reply).


That aught to keep some people busy for a while.....

In other words, we mutually disagree on the meaning of intervention.

Truly, even Tinker Bell has more wisdom than to flood the entire planet.



As a parable I personally took it to mean that no matter how bad things look around me there is always a way for me and my loved ones to rise above it and stay afloat.

The short version of the story is simply, "Where there's a will, there's a way"

Although I can see where people who are on a destructive path might do well to take it to mean that if they don't straighten up and fly right they will drown in their own self-destructive behavior.

Now that's a metaphor you can take to the bank.

An intervening god whose actions have no effect on free will... uh-huh!

Questions:

Intervention, usually means taking action. In the flood story, what was god taking action against?

In the flood story, what was the means of intervention?

In that story, what goal did god want to accomplish via intervention?

Does the bible state if god was happy with the outcome? (ie. did god achieve the ultimate goal?)

Using what is known, based on the flood story, can anyone think of any other way in which god might have intervened, to accomplish the known goal, without death and destruction? (assuming, that is, that death and destruction was not the ultimate goal.)

We must assume that death and destruction was not the ultimate goal, if we are to believe that god was not being manipulative and vindictive. But if death and destruction was the ultimate goal, then the intervention CERTAINLY imposed on free-will.

Example: Suppose I'm on a cruize ship in the middle of the ocean and I see someone I believe is a lying, disgusting, manipulative, individual. I notice he is leaning way over the back of the boat to throw something at the dolphins. In an effort to intervene on the actions of this person, he looses his balance and falls overboard. (I take not futher action - just go on my way)and it is never known that he went overboard..

Have I taken away his free-will?

Would you say I was responsible for his death - after all, he was just in another environment (the ocean), he still had his free will...

Getting rid of the sinners?



Apparently he was remorseful about it and even created a rainbow as a symbol of his promise that he would never do anything that horrible again.



Apparently not. If getting rid of sinners was his goal, then he clearly failed, and later had to try a totally different approach by having his son nailed to a pole.

Apparently that method didn't work either. But supposedly he has a big battle of Armageddon in the works that's supposed to actually work in the end.

Praise the Lord in all his GLORY!

He'll finally win his victory in the end!

Very good ways to interpret that parable.

When it comes to the bible - it must be interpreted by the individual and each individual (who has the mental capacity to do so) should be accountable for the logic of their interpretation.

Because biblical interpretation become the ideals which people pass on to their children, to those in desparation, and those who are just seeking understanding, it becomes a morally driven action.

Before passing on individual interpretation, there must be a moral conviction to do so only after a great deal of critical thought in which assertions have been tested and prove to be logical.

But, most Christians, who choose to pass on their beliefs, have taken those beliefs from others, and have done none of the work required to substantiate or logically defend their own beliefs.

What's worse is that they pass on these illogical ideals without taking any moral responsibility for the nonesence that is being taught to those who are most ill-prepared to exercise their own free will in the matter (children, the desparate, the seeker).

Wow - talk about a paradox.

I think, to be a Christian, one has to believe that Jesus was the physical presence of god. In the physical god was man in the form of Jesus. RIGHT?

I think, also to be a Christian, one has to beleive that god/Jesus had the same free will as other men, otherwise the story of Jesus' temptations would be meaningless.

But how logical is that? For example, while Jesus (who is really god) supposedly knew every action that would lead to his demise, he denied his free-will and followed the will of god (who is really Jesus). So in the end, if all Christians are supposed to deny their own free-will in an effort to subjugate themselves to god's will, do they really have free-will to begin with?

In other words, do it god's way and gain nothing but a possibility of eternal life - do it your way and make your own choices and possibly gain nothing but a possibility of eternal life.

You see how paradox works?

Again - intervention is an action that is meant to separate people from their free will. So was Jesus/god successful in teaching people how to deny their free will? NO-instead people used the figure god/Jesus as a sacrificial lamb and created an icon to worship so that they may continue to employ their own free will without fear of godly intervention.

I think my head is spinning around....

I would personally prefer to teach my chilren the Faery Teachings. I just think it's a more wholesome story all around. It's also far more practical and constructive, IMHO.

did you see the part where they found the wood and the nails and spikes that might have come from the arc? it's on the side of a mountain in turkey

i think that a lot of the bible stories have that kind of background...just have to prove it