Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Search of Noah’s Ark
MSNBC ^ | July 21st, 2003 | Eve Conant

Posted on 07/23/2003 7:03:32 AM PDT by LOL Clinton Was Impeached

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 next last
To: Ahban
We assumed bugs and the really little stuff could live on floating debris. Subtracting out them and aquatic life forms cuts out over 90% of animal life right there.

Unfortunately Genesis 7 specifically states that everything outside the Ark perished:

" And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. "

51 posted on 07/23/2003 9:06:15 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LOL Clinton Was Impeached
There's a black and white photo taken from an American plane back in the 40s that showed what looked like ruined timbers on Mt. Ararat. No expedition has ever been able to traverse the rugged terrain so its hard to confirm. But if its too hard to get to, its too hard to get away from, so this my not have been Noah's landing site. I've seen it and will try to post it, but what looks like the hull of a ship is really hard to ignore.
52 posted on 07/23/2003 9:06:35 AM PDT by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Oh, look; do you want to bring a flood of angry Roman Catholics down on me, or what?

Naaa...I just don't understand why one Christain group would bash another. Just looking for some reasoning...

Of course I don't get all the muslim bashing around here either...For two basic reasons...

1) All terrorists may be muslim (At least the vast, VAST majority) but not all muslims are terrorists (Which leads to number 2)...

2) If all 1.6 billion muslims in the world are "Evil" as many here claim, they sure aren't very motivated.

53 posted on 07/23/2003 9:07:54 AM PDT by LOL Clinton Was Impeached
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: seleniteswells
The second testement was real. Real peple who existed. The first testement is people exxagerated.

Then how do you explain that Jesus referred to a number of OT people, such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah...

54 posted on 07/23/2003 9:14:04 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TomB
"Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them"

Genesis 7:13ff:

It looks like God loaded the ark.

55 posted on 07/23/2003 9:15:12 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Remole; Dataman
The problem is that the whole is framed in the narrative. If one asks what should be the primary interpretive question — What was the intent and understanding of the author? — all the hard evidence affirms that they were writing what they meant to be taken as history. On what basis is our knowledge superior?

But the question about Jesus is the fundamental one.

And now, in closing, an illustration.

You ask me, "Do you trust your wife? Is she faithful? How do you know whether she's faithful?"

I say, "Oh, I have no doubt of it whatever. Once, during a miserably rough spot in our marriage, a really attractive coworker of hers befriended her, and gradually warmed in his approach to her, eventually trying to involve her in an immoral relationship. She turned him down so hard and fast, I think he's still reeling from it now, twenty years later. In fact, she knocked him on his butt, and still has the tooth that flew across the room! So, yeah, I know she's faithful."

You say, "Wow, that's quite a story. And all that really happened?"

I shrug and say, "No. But I still know she's faithful."

Leaving unanswered the question, "How?"

Dan
PS -- I did make that up!

56 posted on 07/23/2003 9:15:30 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
It looks like God loaded the ark.

They still had to get on, and they only had seven days, so how did it happen?

57 posted on 07/23/2003 9:17:55 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LOL Clinton Was Impeached
You look at the links I gave you, your questions about RCism versus Biblical Christianity will be answered, without even making your head hurt. Probably! (c8

Dan
58 posted on 07/23/2003 9:21:27 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Live free or die
Yeah...I think I remember seeing that. Of course I would like to see it again if you can find it...
59 posted on 07/23/2003 9:21:47 AM PDT by LOL Clinton Was Impeached
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Remole; BibChr
I am saying that there is value--and I dare to say, value superior to arguments that insist upon the capacity of Noah's ark to carry two of every species--

You just shot your own foot off with that sentence. Find for me one person that insists on two of every species. I'll be waiting.

and then coming to realize the theological message of the Genesis flood story, as a deliberate polemic

BTW, what are your scholarly qualifications that allow you to make such a claim? You can't have any background related to ancient lit or the Bible since the 19th century hypothesis that the Genesis story was borrowed has been thoroughly debunked. IOW, if you were up on the scholarship in this area, you wouldn't have made such a claim.

60 posted on 07/23/2003 9:23:08 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Yeah...I checked them out. Thanks.

The one thing I remember from Catholic School (Only went there for 1st through 6th grade and then never really went back for church after that) is that we never used bibles. I always found that odd...

I guess that's the part you guys don't like? Catholics use their own form of biblical education?
61 posted on 07/23/2003 9:24:57 AM PDT by LOL Clinton Was Impeached
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TomB
They still had to get on, and they only had seven days, so how did it happen?

Yours is a relatively naive question that has a simple answer. I believe it is antagonistic in nature. The calculations as to the number of animals, how large the ark would have to be and how long it took to load have all been made and remade. Only antagonists raise the numbers to make the feat seem impossible. The answers are available. You, however, need to do your own homework. Here's a clue: the ark was three times larger than it needed to be.

62 posted on 07/23/2003 9:28:20 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: LOL Clinton Was Impeached
Sigh. You do want me to be swarmed.

Okay, here's the deal. As the links would show you, the problem is that Roman Catholicism formally affirms that the Bible is God's Word, and then adds teachings and interpretations which in fact directly contradict its teaching. If you studied the Bible as what it claims to be, the Word of God, you would never end up with Roman Catholicism.

In part, it is a truth-in-advertising thing.

Dan
63 posted on 07/23/2003 9:36:05 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Your own text says everything that "was upon the face of the ground" was destroyed. Does that include mosquitoes that breed in water? Flies that breed in floating corpses? Beetles burrowed in the treetops?

Are you saying that the writer meant to imply that each and every living thing, even the dolpins, penguins, ducks, storks, turtles, crocodiles, and otters were either on the ark or wiped out? Would a flood, even a global flood that displaced the seas onto the land, wipe out those critters?

I don't mind defending what the text says, but that is not what it says. The destruction was limited to those things which dwelled "upon the face of the ground", including birds that were non-aquatic (fowl of the heaven verses those of the waters).
64 posted on 07/23/2003 9:43:19 AM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: LOL Clinton Was Impeached


I think they got the wrong idea using a submarine.
65 posted on 07/23/2003 9:44:04 AM PDT by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Live free or die
Yeah...That's it. Thanks.

That's pretty odd. How did something like that get up there? Of course we don't really know how the pyramids and Machu Pichu (sp?) were created either...
66 posted on 07/23/2003 9:47:41 AM PDT by LOL Clinton Was Impeached
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
ok, 7 pairs of some animals and one pair of others. But my point is (see my earlier posts to BibChr): SO WHAT, in light of the larger issue of the theological message of the story?

Also, I did not claim that it was "borrowed" in a simplistic fashion. Source criticism of the Pentateuch has moved beyond the mere isolation of strata. What does seem likely is that the human authors of Genesis 6-9, under divine inspiration mind you, and aware of the traditions about a Great Flood that preceded them and that existed in other cultures, traditions that suggest a certain viewpoint regarding the relationship between humans and God, crafted their own Great Flood story, drawing on similar motifs but radically altering the message.

As for scholarship, a quick review of the books on my shelf demonstrate amazing unanimity on this point: see Blenkisopp (Pentateuch); see Whybray's article, "Genesis," in the Oxford Bible Commentary; see C. Westermann's Genesis 1-11; see the relevant sections of K. Sparks, The Pentateuch: An Annotated Bibliography.

67 posted on 07/23/2003 9:50:08 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Genesis 5:32 says Noah was 500 yrs when the Lord spoke to him about the ark. Genesis 7:6 says he was 600 when the earth was flooded. Thats around 100 years to build the ark and get the animals ready. The dimensions of the ark in Genesis 6:15 would add up to the space of 52 modern boxcars, enough space for every "kind" of animals on the planet.
68 posted on 07/23/2003 9:51:10 AM PDT by abishai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: BibChr
It isn't necessary to read the Bible to be a Roman Catholic; and even if one does, one is only allowed to see what the Roman Catholic church decrees is there.

Ignorance is bliss.

You must lead a very blissful life.

70 posted on 07/23/2003 9:56:05 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Kind of you to confirm the REST of my post; to wit:

Dozens and dozens and dozens of conversations confirm that statement, though apolgists will formally deny it.

The problems RC's have with what I have to say isn't what I don't know; it's what I do know.

Dan

71 posted on 07/23/2003 10:15:09 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
...if dinosaurs were on the ark, weren't they (dinosaurs) around before the mammals, or at least the majority of them? So did Noah only have reptiles on board?

When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, the largest mammals where the size of rats. Dinosaurs where long gone millons of years before the first human walked the earth.

72 posted on 07/23/2003 10:23:45 AM PDT by Jack of Diamonds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Remole; BibChr
What does seem likely is that the human authors of Genesis 6-9, under divine inspiration mind you, and aware of the traditions about a Great Flood that preceded them and that existed in other cultures, traditions that suggest a certain viewpoint regarding the relationship between humans and God, crafted their own Great Flood story, drawing on similar motifs but radically altering the message.

That seems unlikely. There is no evidence to support your claim, only speculaton. Do you think that maybe-- just maybe Genesis predates the other flood stories? Who sent the flood? The gods of Gilgamesh? It seems that those who find a relationship between Genesis and other ancient texts reject the idea of a worldwide flood. IOW presuppositions trump manuscript data. For a technical but fascinating examination of the evidence, see I Studied Inscriptions From Before The Flood, Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, Volume 4, 480pp. There are 25 scholars who contribute to this volume. Your position does not hold up.

73 posted on 07/23/2003 10:55:17 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: seleniteswells
Find a grave from someone in the first testement.

OK. That isn't too hard to do: From http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/machpelah.html

"The Cave of Machpelah is the world's most ancient Jewish site and the second holiest place for the Jewish people, after Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The cave and the adjoining field were purchased—at full market price—by Abraham some 3700 years ago. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebecca, and Leah are all later buried in the same Cave of Machpelah. These are considered the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people. The only one who is missing is Rachel, who was buried near Bethlehem where she died in childbirth.

The double cave, a mystery of thousands of years, was uncovered several years ago beneath the massive building, revealing artifacts from the Early Israelite Period (some 30 centuries ago). The structure was built during the Second Temple Period (about two thousand years ago) by Herod, King of Judea, providing a place for gatherings and Jewish prayers at the graves of the Patriarchs.

Over 300,000 people visit Ma'arat HaMachpelah annually. The structure is divided into three rooms: Ohel Avraham, Ohel Yitzhak, and Ohel Ya'akov. Presently Jews have no access to Ohel Yitzhak, the largest room, with the exception of 10 days a year.

Rachel's tomb is now generally assumed to be in a spot near Bethlehem, and is covered by a structure built by Sir Moses Montefiore in 1841. During the Jordanian occupation, the area around the tomb was a Muslim cemetery. After the Six-Day War, the structure around the tomb was renovated and it has become a place of mass pilgrimage for Jews. Jews visit it year-round, but specifically on Rosh Chodesh (the new moon and the first of the Hebrew month), the month of Elul and the anniversary of Rachel’s death on the 14th of Heshvan."

Joseph's tomb is in Shechem. He died in Egypt, but in Exodus it talks about how they brought his bones back, as he requested. Even the Muslims recognize these places because at every opportunity, they try to deface, destroy or build a mosque over these areas.

You asked for 1 grave, here are 7. Hopefully that is enough.

In Jesus alone,
Andra
74 posted on 07/23/2003 11:01:09 AM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
I've requested the book via ILL and will review it. I trust you realize that academic discourse deals with varying degrees of probability and that it is not wise to blithely toss about the accusation of "speculation." Even the most tightly demonstrated and argued position, with evidence that will choke a cow, can be dismissed as "speculation" by those whose minds are closed.
75 posted on 07/23/2003 11:10:54 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
This is what you said:

We assumed bugs and the really little stuff could live on floating debris.

The vast majority of "bugs" were "upon the face of the ground".

The dimensions of the ark in Genesis 6:15 would add up to the space of 52 modern boxcars, enough space for every "kind" of animals on the planet.

How can you possibly get to the conclusion that "52 boxcars" are enough to hold every "kind" of animal? Even excluding acquatic animals.

Where did they put all the food? How did they manage to clean out the TONS of excrement those animals would produce every day?

76 posted on 07/23/2003 11:13:25 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Remole
I've requested the book via ILL and will review it. I trust you realize that academic discourse deals with varying degrees of probability and that it is not wise to blithely toss about the accusation of "speculation." Even the most tightly demonstrated and argued position, with evidence that will choke a cow, can be dismissed as "speculation" by those whose minds are closed.

You won't be disapponted in the wealth of information you find in the book. Regarding the speculation, since at least the days of Tubingen, the Bible has been assumed wrong until proven right. Almost all other ancient lit is assumed to be more reliable inspite of the trainload of supporting scriptural mss. It has survived baseless criticism for thousands of years and has been found to be in error only by fiat. Higher criticism has been hammered --by legit scholarship-- for the past 150 years and is now flatter than a Texas road armadillo.

77 posted on 07/23/2003 11:49:20 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
I can assure you that I am not in the camp of those who assume the Bible is wrong until proven right. My perspective on the Genesis Flood account is NOT to figure out if the Bible is "true" from an historical or geological analysis. Rather, my interest is in the truth of the theological message; and that message can be clearly seen--perhaps MORE clearly seen--when one reads it in light of the Ancient Near East texts that resemble it (notice that I did not say "parallels").
78 posted on 07/23/2003 12:11:27 PM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Look, I really don't want to argue interpretation with you. The Hebrew word for the things that crawl on the face of the ground refers to specific classes of animals, like skinks and mice.

As for that second quote, I don't know where you got it. Its not mine. Still, I'd say that would be adequate space for the 11,000 species, or more likely, 5-6000, that my student and I researched. The average size of those critters would be about the size of a chicken. Not including subspecies, there really are only a few hundred really large types of terristiral animals.

The food for the mammals and birds would be a problem, and also the excrement. Reptiles only need a meal every six months or so, when they are inactive. If there were 6,000 kinds, including 2,000 reptiles, that leaves 4,000 kinds that are "high maintenance". That is a lot, but many from that group have the active or latent ability to hibernate or estivate.

I am not sure how many are left, but even if they took 7 of each of the 4,000 high maintenance types that is 28,000 chicken sized (on average) animals.

We have lots of chicken houses around here that hold 28,000 chickens, worked by ONE COUPLE, and they are nowhere near the size of 52 box cars.

Look, maybe the flood account is fiction, maybe its history- but you can't prove it is fiction by doing the math on the ark. I know because I have done it more than once in my life.
79 posted on 07/23/2003 12:34:31 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator

To: Jack of Diamonds
When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, the largest mammals where the size of rats. Dinosaurs where long gone millons of years before the first human walked the earth.

You were there?

81 posted on 07/23/2003 1:39:34 PM PDT by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
The problems RC's have with what I have to say isn't what I don't know; it's what I do know

I'm RC. I've read the bible cover to cover at least twice. I read individual books of the bible on a regular basis. I've participated in independent bible study groups that have covered Acts, Romans and each of the gospels. I've done this with other RCs. Nearly every parish that I know of has an active independent bible study group.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

You are walking that fine line between ignorance and lying. Choosing to remain ignorant is a form of deception. Its not just RCs that have a problem with this - most people have a problem with this. RCs will just speak out to defend themselves from your slander.

82 posted on 07/23/2003 1:46:38 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: seleniteswells
You yourself said you believed the "second testament." So what parts do you believe? And if not all, what is your criteria for picking and choosing? For example, how can we trust what Jesus said about the gospel if we don't believe what He said about Noah?
83 posted on 07/23/2003 2:19:02 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
do you want to bring a flood of angry Roman Catholics down on me, or what?

Is LOL baiting you? ;o)

84 posted on 07/23/2003 2:27:43 PM PDT by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
Then you might want to read the testimony of the RC priest who ended up leaving Rome for Jesus.

Interesting. Do you have any comparison stats between how many priests leave for a non-Catholic church and how many non-Catholic ministers come home to the Catholic church?

85 posted on 07/23/2003 2:29:29 PM PDT by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Rhetoric, and nothing but. I already called you.

If you're Roman Catholic, you can read the Bible a thousand times and, apart from a work of the Spirit of God, it won't matter. You will not let you see what Rome tells you isn't there. You'll believe Rome, not your lying eyes.

You have cited ZERO evidence that I am ignorant in ANYTHING I have said about RCism. You share that in common with every other RC I've talked with in FR.

You just think you're obliged to defend that which cannot be defended. I pray that you will learn that you needn't, and discover the joy and liberty of knowing Jesus Christ, as He is revealed in the Word of God alone.

Dan
86 posted on 07/23/2003 2:37:54 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: al_c
Don't know, don't care, irrelevant. If it's an issue to you, write the ex-RC. Maybe he knows.

Dan
87 posted on 07/23/2003 2:40:27 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Theo
One does not have to have "been there" to know that the last dinosaurs perished approximately 65 million years before Biblical times. One need only examine the scientific evidence with unbiased, unclouded eyes.

It is indeed interesting to see people respond to questions about the, to put it extremely mildly, fanciful logistics of the story of Noah (Loading the animals, caring for them, assembling the sheer number of them, etc.) with "God did it; it was a MIRACLE!!".

If that were true, why did He even need the ark OR Noah in the first place?

The Bible is an excellent and heartwarming source of morals and principles to live by, as well as cautionary tales. But it's not a history or scientific text, regardless of how hard some attempt to make it so.

88 posted on 07/23/2003 2:52:11 PM PDT by Long Cut (Mini-Cut: Our baby BOY born 10 July 2003, 7 pounds, 13 ounces. Welcome to the world, SON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: LOL Clinton Was Impeached
B4L8r
89 posted on 07/23/2003 2:52:32 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seleniteswells
Sea life didn't have to. It could swim. Guess we'll
find out the truth of all this stuff some day. Seems
like just yesterday I was 36, now I'm 56, nearly 57.
Time flies. So, the Creator will have the last word.
I'll hope in the Lord, thanks. Why don't people just
tell Him the truth if they doubt Him and ask him what
about it? Sometimes God's subtle, sometimes not. Christ
is fully able to speak to all men if they're listening.
90 posted on 07/23/2003 2:53:21 PM PDT by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
"Before Later"???
91 posted on 07/23/2003 3:41:01 PM PDT by LOL Clinton Was Impeached
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
If that were true, why did He even need the ark OR Noah in the first place?

DING! DING! DING!!!! We have a winner.

Well put, LC.




(so, is mini-cut going to be another flying squid?) ;-))))

92 posted on 07/23/2003 4:00:20 PM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
Sea life didn't have to. It could swim.

How did sea life survive all that rain, enough to raise sea levels above the highest mountians, when it would have reduced salinity to a point that would have normally killed sea life?

93 posted on 07/23/2003 4:03:07 PM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TomB
"Fountains of the deep" were also opened.
94 posted on 07/23/2003 4:09:23 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: TomB
"(so, is mini-cut going to be another flying squid?) ;-)))) "

Only if he wants to be. Right now, i just want him to be a healthy, happy, and much-loved baby.

95 posted on 07/23/2003 4:09:59 PM PDT by Long Cut (Mini-Cut: Our baby BOY born 10 July 2003, 7 pounds, 13 ounces. Welcome to the world, SON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TomB
It had a special dispensation.
96 posted on 07/23/2003 4:20:46 PM PDT by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
I have read the bible, as is required to be a good Catholic. It tells me that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for my sins so that I may be saved.

Every good Catholic believes this. We have learned this through the bible, not Rome.

Are we in error in believing this?
(a) if you answer "Yes" - then there is no need for us to discuss anything further because you would not be a Christian.
(b) if you answer "No, RCs are not in error in believing this" - then we can discuss things further.
(c) if you give me some more bs about "lying eyes" or something similar then I will simply dismiss you as being either stubborn, dillusional or ignorant.

You know, some Protestants simply amaze me. Catholics and Protestant both believe the same singlemost important thing: that Jesus died for our sins so that we may be saved. We are also in good agreement on most other things: God, heaven, satan, how to live a Christian life, marriage, family, abortion, etc. There are thousands of hedonists, non-believers, atheists, agnostics - and millions of poor, hungry and lonely people. Yet some Protestants devote enormous amounts of energy to attacking Catholics.

Read Luke 11:17,18.
97 posted on 07/23/2003 6:00:27 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would agree with that statement. Are they Christians?

Now, honesty (or knowledge of your Rome's dogma?) test: what does the church of Rome ADD TO that statement as requirements for salvation ("...Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for my sins so that I may be saved")?

Dan
98 posted on 07/23/2003 6:03:50 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LOL Clinton Was Impeached
This is a repost of older material that may be relavent to this discussion:

Mt Ararat didn't become Mt Ararat until the 12th century. When the Bible was translated in to Armenian.

The problem is that the Armenians moved. Modern Archaeology has discovered that ancient Armenia is in the Mountains of north Iran. which would eplain how as the Bible says "And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in Shinar..."

If you want to find the Ark start here: The True Location of Noahs Ark and here Noah's Ark in Iran-not Turkey


If they ever do find the Ark on Mordern day Mt. Ararat, then the Bible is one screwed up book. Have fun ya'll
99 posted on 07/23/2003 6:19:14 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: seleniteswells
These are assumptions that they are buried there, not facts, like Tut or another ancient figure.

I think if you truly do your research, you will find these are not just assumptions.

The second testement is more real because it is eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

I am sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand the logic behind it. For one thing, the Old Testament contains many eyewitness accounts. By your own logic, then it is true. But I am not here to change your mind, that is not my place. However, nobody can truly understand the Greek scriptures (NT) until the understand the Hebrew scriptures (OT). For all of the New Testament is based on the Old Testament. But since some wish to give more weight to the New Testament, they might wish to consider these passages from the New Testament because they reinforce the importance of the OT:

While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him...And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Jesus said:"...You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ...The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.


There are several others also, but I won't list them here. If you are interested, I will gladly look them up and post them for you to consider. But somehow, I don't think you are interested.

Don;t mistake me for a Christian Basher.
The thought never crossed my mind. I am sorry that it did yours though.

In Jesus alone,
Andra
100 posted on 07/23/2003 6:23:15 PM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson