Skip to comments.Noah's Ark 'Was a Massive Double-Decker Coracle'
Posted on 12/16/2013 10:52:52 AM PST by Theoria
click here to read article
All of your questions are answered in the video. I challenge you to watch it with an open mind...
None of us start with a 'clean slate', and we will all bring our world views to the table -- but if you could, I'd say that the Biblical explanation of Creation is more logical than any of the commonly told myths of today. You don't need to violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. You don't need to explain away the evidence of design that God left for us to see and explore. Or as Isaac Newton put it, "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
The only logic you use to reject God's Word is a self-imposed world view that is blinded.
lol Let it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and wait for the sewers to back up..have you seen the floor, who’s going to clean up that mess...
Well, I would say more plausible in that they account in similar ways. I guess it is for each person to accept for his/herself on whether they accept the Bible as a historical account.
Some Christians believe stories in the Bible should be taken literal and some believe many of the stories are metaphorical or fable, but with spiritual meaning.
As for me, I take the story of Noah's Ark literal. I could see a cataclysmic event submerging and separating Pangaea consistent with a Great Flood.
I can also see where accounts could vary in detail over time and through various languages, particularly with the injection of cultural names and pagan deities.
I’m less interested in what people believe to be true than I am in what actually is true.
Spitz would have been more likely to provide better dispersion
i love beggin strips
apropos of nothing when i got my french dip today for lunch i thot i should have ordered a submarine in stead
For some, that would seem the logical choice.
Selections from Immanuel Velikovsky’s
Worlds in Collision (1950)
’ The astronomers and the geologists whose concern is all this ..... should judge of the causes
which could effect the derangement of the day and could cover the earth with tenebrosity,’
wrote a clergyman who spent many years in Mexico and in the libraries of the Old World
which store ancient manuscripts of the Mayas and works of early Indian and Spanish authors
[Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, 1950]
6. In the manuscripts of Avila and Molina, who collected the traditions of the Indians of the New
World, it is related that the sun did not appear for five days, a cosmic collision of stars preceded the
cataclysm; people and animals tried to escape to mountain caves. ‘Scarcely had they reached there, when
the sea, breaking out of bounds following a terrifying shock, began the rise of the pacific coast. But as
the sea rose, filling the valleys and the plains around, the mountain of Ancasmarca rose too, like a ship
on the waves. During the five days that this cataclysm lasted, the sun did not show its face and the earth
remained in darkness.’
For pleasure? I imagine the food must have been delicious in that perfect garden.
you can wear the skin of an animal who died of old age, trauma,lightniung strike , whatever....you can also eat some of them.........if not too old!!!
Believing n the bible requires suspension of disbelief....a lot of it.
Didn’t realize that. Here’s the article:
How long can you tread water?
My comments were not about “before the fall” but after, but before the flood.
Yes, but also before when you said:
“Eating and Death are very deep topics.
Death entered the world post fall, long before the flood.”
So no death before the fall. There would be no need to eat, there was no biological process required for it, so why would they eat the fruit of any tree?
For the same reason they enjoyed sex, for the enjoyment.
(Sigh). I suppose so. and the animals can also voluntarily just peel their skins off. Anything to prove a minor point.
The drowning of the coasts, especially in SEA and the Persian Gulf circa 4000 BC with the ocean rise of that time.
if God didn't want us to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat??
They DID eat — As Jesus did after his resurrection.
BUT they ate the fruit of the tree of life.
BTW, in heaven, this tree will be restored, literally.
All of creation was meant to be immortal.
Death is, sort of, an infection. Look at our bodies. They repair themselves, but fall to aging. If there was no aging, we would be immortal (other than disease processes). We will have (in heaven) real, physical bodies that are perfected and immortal.
Seems strange to me that immortal creatures would have to eat. There would be no purpose. Why would it even come to mind as an activity in which to engage.
Grand Canyon Gorge Is 9 Times Older Than Thought
National Geographic News | 4-9-2008 | Hope Hamashige
Posted on 4/9/2008 4:26:29 PM by blam