Wow... Noah's Ark Found????

[nebula]

OK . . .

What is a CINO?

[Axxman]

OK . . .

What is a CINO?

Christian in name only.

[nebula]

Wait, did someone call a fellow poster that? Let me go check. . . .

OK, folks - you all know the rules about personal attacks. I can sentiment frustrations, but please be careful to "let your words be full of grace seasoned with salt." Not that I'm perfect either, but we truly do need to learn how to do this the godly way. You know?

Edited April 28, 2010 by nebula

[sheya joie]

Then, as I stated in my post, why the need to build a boat and gather animals? Noah was given plenty of advance warning about the Flood; if it was less than worldwide, he would have only needed to leave the area that would be affected by the Flood. The fact that he needed a boat to escape and needed to protect the animals tells me this was no ordinary flood.

Besides, if it was less than a worldwide Flood, then God lied here:

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Just to clarify...I respect your reasons for believing your version. I'm not certain that this thread is the appropriate place to discuss the various opinions and theories on the flood. this thread is about the discovery of a wooden structure on a mountain. I was more responding because in successive posts a member was called a CINO (not by you), then the next post was you making the case against a localized flood. I was more tossing out the idea that just because people have differing ways of viewing it...doesn't necessarily make them wrong or a CINO. In hindsight, I should have responded to the other post. Sorry if you thought I was picking a fight with you, or offended you.

Ok. I wondered why you quoted my post without really addressing my reasoning.

[sunnier]

If the Flood was localized only (as opposed to worldwide), there would have been no need to gather animals to keep the various kinds alive, nor even a need to build an ark for refuge from the Flood - they could have simply walked out of the area that was going to be flooded and go to high ground elsewhere. The fact that they had to build the ark and gather the animals shows that there wasn't going to be any high ground left anywhere.

The story of the Flood is a perfect example of when "all" doesn't always mean "all"...and "earth" doesn't mean the whole globe. I don't blame people for taking a literal English version translation of the flood...they are within their rights to have faith in that. (Just like I don't blame people for believing that man lived for hundreds of years, by taking a literal english view of the bible.) However, others shouldn't be blamed for taking a more academic and realistic view of the passages.

You quoted my post, yet I fail to see how your post addresses mine?

I'm sorry..

I was just saying that you have a version of the flood in which you believe "all' the world was flooded, and "all" the animals were taken...and that is fine and understandable. But for some of us, we have a different view based on our studies that "all" doesn't always mean everything in the world.

Since when does "all" not mean "all"? :

[nebula]

Since when does "all" not mean "all"? :

Because a more literal translation would say "All the land." At that time there was no concept of planet Earth, so the writer(s) of Genesis wouldn't record it as such.

There's another debate about this in another thread ("Was the flood literal" or something like that). This would be a better place for the discussion so as not to hijack this thread any further.

But I was just pointing out the argument to answer your question.

[mizzdy]

Seems this is yet another fake. Why don't people let things be?!

[nebula]

OK, the report came from a message board, so I tried to find the original source.

I found this

Please be sure to read this, too.

[CSLewis]

I'm shocked.

[~candice~]

I am not shocked at all.