Thanks for your responses to the last Wavering, via comments, e-mails, face-to-face, and IM. They were mostly interesting, but even the redundant and useless responses taught me something.
Unfortunately, this post is mostly pointless. It basically demonstrates a point that almost all Christians and non-Christians alike accept. But I already typed it up, so might as well post it.
All right, then, another well-known story: Noah’s Ark.
The story: God grew displeased with human sin, and decided to flood the earth. However, Noah was counted as righteous, and God had him build an ark. He and his immediate family, along with anyone else who would listen (zero) would be saved, along with the animals, either 2 or 7 of each. Noah didn’t have to gather any; the animals were sent by God. The world was flooded, the waters receded, and everyone got out. (The language of the text seems to indicate a worldwide deluge, not just an area.)
Think about one of the animals we know today: penguins. Penguins require a cold climate, and would have to not only somehow swim the distance from Antarctica to Africa, but survive hot climates to get to Noah. Even assuming God teleported them, they would still have had to survive in the ark almost a year. The story does work if God used his power to keep them alive, say, by creating some sort of refrigerated area on the ark (and it would be foolish to expect the Bible to have this kind of detail).
As a side point, some will ask about the dinosaurs, although one could say dinosaur young were sent, or that dinosaurs had already died out. The most common belief for a Biblical literalist is that after the flood, the earth and its climate had changed irrevocably, and the dinosaurs died out thereafter.
Not to mention there mightn’t have been enough food for such a large creature immediately after the flood. Which brings up this point: since there were very few animals left (mostly sets of two), how could any carnivore cope in the immediate post-flood era?
The point of this is that the story of Noah is only reasonable if one accepts an all-powerful (or very powerful) God in the first place. This requires some degree of faith: both Christians and non-Christians would agree with this.
It’s not much of an insight, really, and does nothing to verify or disprove the Bible by itself. The next installment will be much more poignant and uncomfortable.
As an aside, whenever you see art depicting Noah’s Ark with animals, have you noticed there’s almost always giraffes? Lions and elephants are a close second. This kinda makes sense, since Noah lived in or near Africa. But then again, Noah is always white…
“But then again, Noah is always white…”
Couldn’t fight back the chuckle there. Interesting, for some reason in sunday school I hated this story. Mainly because I always asked the teacher how the lion didn’t eat the other animals or how Noah fed them all.
Well, to start with, there were no meat-eaters, including man before the flood and the animals had no fear of man to that point. Count us with the Biblical literalists. None of us was there so the only documentation is the Bible although many peoples have passed down a story of a flood in their not-so-accurate histories. Is a flood more hard to believe than the creation of the universe? Is it more hard to believe in a flood than it is to believe that evolution created gender and the eyeball?
Grandma: it’s not so much that it’s hard to believe the flood, but the account does have aspects which require belief beyond the natural knowledge we can gain via our senses in 2007.
And evolution doesn’t???
What are you saying? You do believe the flood account? Many things in the OT go beyond natural knowledge of our senses. For that matter so do the explanations of the scientists concerning the beginnings of the universe which is so vast.
Do I believe the flood account? The point of “Wavering” is that I’m tring to determine whether the Bible is reasonable to believe.
On evolution: I do think that there are aspects of our beginnings that are ill-explained by completely naturalistic means. But this does not imply that the God of the Bible is truth.
If someone asks me whether to believe a scientists with evidence we can see and test or a group of people who claim divine revelation thousands of years ago, I’m throwing my lot in with the former.
Donnie, do you believe that atoms exist? You cannot see atoms, no one ever has, but you believe in them right? No one alive today saw the flood, but you can still believe in it. No one has or ever will see God, but we still believe in Him. God’s mind and power is greater than ten of yours (Not trying to insult you, but it is true.). He has/can do anything he wants, however He wants. You and I cannot figure out and prove every step that He has/will make, but we can believe that He exists and that He knows what He is doing. How can we believe that? He created you, so He must know something about His job.
God’s servant: The argument for the existence of atoms is very different than for the Flood. Evidence for atoms is measurable and reproduceable. You can argue the Flood’s existence, but it’s based on the veracity of one ancient manuscript, not anything we can see today.
It is of note that there apparently was some incredible flood in the Meditterean area some time ago, but it does not verify the Bible’s account of the Flood by itself.
And no offense taken about God’s mind and power. Of course He’d be much more powerful (there are plenty of people who are greater than me, so it’s no biggie).
Evolution has less evidence than the flood. Salt water fish have been found fossilized on the tops of mountains. What about the Grand Canyon? The Bible implies that the whole world had one main climate before the flood. Therefore, the animals like the penguins wouldn’t have needed God’s intervention.
What do you do with fulfilled prophecy in the Bible?
I’m glad you didn’t mind the jab.
There must be some reason why scientists favor evolution, even if it’s just “that’s the best we can do for now”.
Could you give the references implying one world climate? I’m not seeing it.
If you look in Gen. 6. The after the flood the world seems to have taken on a whole new face. There may not have been mountains or drastic elevations. This would lead one to think that there very possibly could have been a one climate system.(I didn’t elaborate very much, but there is a short pathic answer.
Some people will believe anything just to advoid the truth, even if it is a lie. It takes a lot more “faith” to believe what they believe.
Question: If someone could prove the whole Bible, or everything you are questioning, to you would you believe it? (If you answer this, answer HONESTLY.)
If someone could prove the Bible, I’d be comfortable with it, having grown up Christian. But I’m not really looking to prove the whole Bible. Rather, it’s to make sure it’s not inconsistent, and doesn’t contradict what we can see with our own eyes. Many people of faith become blind (to a degree) to rationality. Extreme examples would be Benny Hinn’s followers or suicide bombers.
Not to attack, but I would agree the answer to the one world climate isn’t very good. Even if the Earth took a new face, it still does not mean there were not different climates. The Sun’s rays would still not have hit the poles as strongly as the equator, meaning there were cold and warm areas of the Earth. As far as we know, penguins require cold weather, and per the Bible, they would have been created since the beginning.
You cannot compare us Christians to suicide bombers or a Benny Hinn follower. That is not fair, I think you would agree. If you believe in the rightly divided truth of the Bible you are safe.
If I am wrong about believeing in Christianity, what do I have to lose? However, if I am right you have eternity to lose. If one can prove the Bible, it is without fault. If one part of the Bible is off the whole thing means nothing. I don’t know about you, but I consider inconsistency a flaw. Do you have to see it to believe it?
My one climate theory can hold as much water as your theory of evolution (if not more). All animals were herbavores before the flood, so if they were different in that they could have been able to adapt to all climates.(I didn’t say that very well, but I think you get my point.)
Sorry, I did not mean to imply you were nutty like a suicide bomber. Those examples were simply to demonstrate a person who believes by faith could potentially believe anything. Scientology, anyone?
To your point it would be safer for me to be religious than non-religious, can’t argue with that. However, true Christianity cannot be faked. If I can’t believe the Bible is true, I can’t be a Christian even to “play it safe”.
The one climate conjecture is not even mentioned in the Bible. There’s no evidence that it was ever the case, and I fail to see how it’s as credible as evolution.
By the way, did you know various penguins can survive warm weather? I just found out today. Looks like I’ll have to switch examples to the polar bear. 😀