Is the story of the world wide flood a parabel or reality?

I was raised to believe that the flood was a real event. A world wide full on flood, that destroyed everything on earth, except the people and animals that were with Noah. And as a child it was easy to believe, a big boat full of God's creatures floating around until the water receeded.

However, as I've grown, learned, and been educated about our animal population on this earth, I find this more likely to be a parabell. And for what I would consider valid reasons.

1. Is there a boat big enough to hold EVERY type of animal on earth? I assume that would include ALL landbased animals, plus insects of all types, and any fresh water fish/species. Not only would this boat have to hold all the different types of animals, it would have to hold food to feed all of the animals for 40 days! Now, that seems like a MASSIVE boat to me, in fact, I'm not even sure that with today's technology and materials/craftmanship it's possible. Just the sheer amount of space necessary to house all these creatures is staggering to the mind. And all of it capable of floating, using technology and more importantly the material supplies of the day!

It just seems like it was meant to be a parabell, and not in fact an actual event. Now obviously, since I was not there, and can't vouch for the validity of the story, I'm wondering if the is any evidence for it being either reality vs parabell, with a great lesson for all of us.

Well, if the Flood didn't happen as described in the Bible then Jesus was a terrible liar, or very misinformed. He spoke of Noah and the Flood as being real in Luke 17, when describing what the 2nd Coming would be like. If the Flood was a parable, not to be taken literally, then I suppose the Second Coming of Christ needs to be interpreted allegorically as well.

Also, scientists have done feasibility studies and have shown that 2 or 7 of all of the different kinds of animals we presently have could fit in a space half as large as the space inside the ark described in Genesis 6. With plenty of room left over for food.

Noah's ark was enormous, you know, so practically it is quite possible: the Bible also says that God himself guided all the animals into the ark while Noah watched - and everyone else watched, too...but weren't persuaded!

At the other end of the scale, you are aware are you not that a wooden structure of the shape and size of the ark has been found in the mountains of eastern Turkey? Mount Ararat, to be precise. It's actually an official Turkish tourist resort, but I'm not sure how well publicised it is there or on the internet - given the ramifications!

As for the variety of animals to fit into the ark, biology shows that species are varieties of types of animals - a very basic scientific point! Were they types or species of animals going into the ark? What does the Bible say?

Have you heard of the South African Adventist zooologist, Walter Veith (of German descent): now, while he turned creationist in the 80's - on becoming an Adventist Christian (and losing his academic post as a result: but he is back in academia a while since then) - have you read anything of his on the topic of the flood and the ark? It's not an emphasis of his, but he must have a viewpoint because he is into controversial Biblical truths.

Depending on where you prefer to lay the level you call type, it could be argued that humans and mice are species under the type of vertebrates.

The only thing (I mean the only technicality) I learned in biology class (did it for one year maximum!) is the subdivisions: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Somewhere between family and genus would be Noah's zoo.

Veith covers the animals on the ark in at least one presentation. His bottom line is that Noah did not have to take a set of each species. For example, he only took one set of dogs, even though there are now different species. The speciation happened later.

If you put the level at family, somewhere between Noah and now some of Noahs family became orangutangs, gorillas and chimpanzes. If you put the level at genus, well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29
There is quite a lot of interesting distant relatives in that list...

Why is so important that the flood story must be literally true?

That depends, Darius, on how well you understand the law and the gospel to be linked to & in God's work in our world's history: both God's salvation and how we relate to God as a race is first recorded in human history with Noah - philosophically and practically; hence it exemplifies the second group event before Jesus' Return.

In fact, Noah’s family and the animals remained in the ark not during 40 days, but during a whole year.

Gen 7:1 In the 600th year of Noah’s life, in the 2nd month, on the 17th day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Gen 8:13-16 In the 601st year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. In the 2nd month, on the 27th day of the month, the earth was dry. Then God said to Noah, "Go forth from the ark."

The waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days (Gen. 7:24), and receded slowly from the earth (Gen. 8:3 ff).

Regarding food, nothing prevents most of the animals to have remained under a kind of hybernation during this period.

As to fish, note that the Bible tells us that only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals and birds were taken on the ark (Gen. 7:14-15, 21-23). This website presents a good explanation on how fish could have survived the flood:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html

Colin, how did your response answer my query?

You didn't spot the importance of Noah's true history from my comments??! Then I can't help you much more:...sorry, I prefer not to patronise you.

Colin, I guess you did not notice that Noah's ark was not built to rescue anyone else but Noah and his family. Read the story again.

No, it was also built to rescue the animals.

Gen. 6
13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.
18 But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.
21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them."

Which brings us back to the original question. Could the ark literally house all those animals?

Does anyone have a link to a study that calculates the mass and volume of all those animals. Of course, the fact that speciation has probably happened since then should be taken into account.

Do you only take the text itself as the full meaning of the passage???! Isn't that fundamentalism/literalism in the strictest sense? That is being most unhelpful when dealing with the full meaning of whether Noah's history is true or mythical!

Noah was instructed to SAVE HIS FAMILY!!...he wasn't to fail to provide for them: did God forbid anyone else from entering, or did God make salvation from the flood and his judgement on the day's wickedness available to anyone who wanted it? The rest of the Bible dictates such a meaning for the text of Gen 6 and Noah's work for God.

If that was patronising to your further thoughts, you asked for it, because my first response implied this obvious point to someone of your qualifications.

Sorry Colin, but you were patronizing to your own self. Did Noah decide how much food to place on the ark after everyone had made their reservations? Could the ark accomodate everybody who could have booked passage? Those are simple questions to deal with.

Colin,

If we are not to take these passage's literally, then how should we take them? Should we interpet them ourselves? Or should we have you interpet them for us? Are you the only one capable of figuring out what it all "really" meant?

If we don't take them literally, then ALL things are open to interpetation aren't they? That opens up a whole host of other problems. We have to take them literally, that's the way the story is presented in the Bible.

Is there really some other way to look at the Bible, other than to read "literally" into what it says? I just don't understand how you can adjust the meaning to fit "your" viewpoint.

So, the question still remains, is it even possible, for ALL types of creatures, insects, mammels, invertabrates, ALL animals to enter a boat that was built with the craftmanship and tools available at that time? A boat large enough to house all the food and water, and space to turn around and stretch out (large animals need quite a bit of room to move and stretch).

Which brings up another question. Since there were so many carnivore's on board the ark, how many extra animals were on board to feed those animals? How much room was needed for extra gazella's and rabbit's to feed the lion's and tiger's? Those animals eat a LOT of pounds per day of meat, and they are just the tip of the iceberg in that line of questioning.

I feel that until I'm shown, with modern number's and language, and rules of physics, that the ark was able to house these animals and food stores to feed them, that the story MUST be a parabell. Show me, PROVE to me that they can fit. I'm not saying that God couldn't do it, I just don't think it happened in the "literal" sense.

Here's a site which discusses the question, "How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

Tom,

Wow, that is truely a piece of work there. Some great calculations, and neat ideas. However, when reading this page of info, I came to several things that need further questioning before they can be taken "as gospel".

1. What is the original Hebrew term for "nostril"? That page stated <<<"The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.>>> They tell me what the other words mean, but I don't know what the term "nostril" is in hebrew, so thus, this may NOT be what was meant, but I've currently no way to distinguish, I'd love some clarity on this.

2. It's stated <<<"The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.">>> It probably means that? It either does or it does not, it can't "probably" mean anything. So there's something that's not cleared up either.

3. It's also stated <<<"Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well.">>> Now, there's some hard and fast proof for you, seeds "could" have survived on floating rafts of vegetation? Really, 40 days and nights of storms, rain, raging water; and seeds for ALL plants on earth survived on floating rafts of vegetation? Not all plants reproduce by seeds, some are by spore's. How would they survive 960 hours of continual wetness? How many of your houseplants do well for 40 days of continual watering?

4. Here's another good one <<<"But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host.">>> Now, I'm all for scientific research, things reproduceable in a lab, time after time, results that other people can reproduce in a lab somewhere else, FACTS. To state "germs were probably more robust in the past" is as far from FACT as you can get. There's nothing factual about that statemnt. There's no reference for that statement, no data to prove this, it's quite an outlandish statement. In fact, "germs" are becoming MORE ROBUST right now, even as we speak. MRSA, have you heard of it? There's PROOF that they are getting MORE robust, not less.

5. And then there's the easiest question of all. How can you say that some did not survive <<<"However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business.">>> Now we KNOW that the Bible say's

<<<"‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’">>>

Now, that sounds pretty "inclusive" to me. When the term used is "every living thing of all flesh", it makes me think it means just that, EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF LIFE ON EARTH. It does not say, some types, or just those that fit, or those who couldn't swim, or those that could float around on rafts of vegetation. It says, quite literally I'll remind you, every living thing of flesh. I just don't know how you can rationalize that.

So, why can't the flood just be a parable? There were SO many other parable's in the Bible, why not the flood. And if you make a bunch of arguments about, God could have made them hibernate, or seeds could have floated around on vegetation mats, you could also just say it was a parable. Or, God could have just sent a boat(spaceship), and taken all the animals and plants off the planet until the water receeded. Sounds silly huh!

God has shown us the way to His love, through the use of truth and tale, sometimes using "stories" to help us understand. Not in every instance is the Bible tell actual facts, and it says as much.

And just because something in the Bible might be fable, not fact, does not diminish His love for us. It does not mean that I don't take God as my personal saviour. We can look at the same picture and see two different things, but we can still appreciate the picture can't we?

And sorry to beat a dead horse(sorry for that term, but I know it best describes what I'm doing here), one last thing.

"However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood."

This is in direct conflict with this statement.

"‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

And so once again I say, """""EVERY LIVING THING OF FLESH"""""", those aren't my words, those are of the Bible. If every living thing of flesh was to be preserved, and yet some were made extinct by the turbulent waters, then either Noah failed at his task, or God didn't mean "every living thing of flesh"!!!!!!!!!

I'm not calling anyone a liar, or truth twister, I'm just trying to reconcille this issue for myself.

Taking the text literally? Of course Noah was told to include 8 humans in the ark, so as described it happened - just look at it from God's perspective as to its deeper meaning is all I'm suggesting: to the question of whether the story is truth or myth, the importance of its truth goes to God's own truth: Who he himself is (his holy deity and sin's abhorrence to him), and how he deals with us in both saving those who place their faith in his saving action and condemning those whose unbelief in him condemns them...his grace is withdrawn from them.

Jesus himself referred to our day with Noah's day as an example in wickedness, being in principle the selfsame scenario: the world to choose belief in God or not about salvation from eternal death.

As for the practicalities of Noah's ark, it was the length of one and a half football pitches (that's SOCCER to you Americans!), which are required to be at least 100 yards long, half a pitch's width (@ 25 yards) and 3 storeys high at 15 yards. That's practically the biggest boat ever built by mankind. Its deck surface area was 36 lawn tennis courts (or 20 standard college basketball courts): Just how it functioned is much debated, but in Biblical history it is warranted absolute truth by all personalities and Biblical writers.

It seems to me that you are approaching things in a manner which is, I can't think of the word to characterize this, so I'll just say not completely reasonable. Here are two examples:



They say "probably" because it is isn't known with certainty. There is evidence the word means a certain thing, enough to say that it's "probable," but not enough to say it's "certain." That you would take issue with this strikes me as odd.

Another example:



It might make you think of that, but ancient Hebrew isn't your native language, so this really is a moot point. Much of what you wrote is of a similar nature.

If you're looking for a reason *not* to believe the flood story, I'm sure you can find many reasons for that. However, if you're trying to determine if the story is possible, there is evidence for that. I just pointed to one cite, but there are many others.

I'm curious, do you believe in the creation account?

If we're talking about "pitches," that's baseball, not football.


(that's a joke, Colin)

Noted

We also have cricket pitches, though that's actually the wicket - not the field

It is too bad that so many people have their confidence in the integrity of the men who wrote the Bible rather than in the truth or in the One about whom the Bible is supposed to be about. They prefer to adopt positions that make the Creator look ridiculous. Sad.

When speaking about efforts in translating a language that has been dead for at least 2000 years, "propably mean" is almost an understatement.To be picky, bacteria become "more robust" by surviving our atempts to kill them better. That does not say anything about their robustness against other kinds of threats that cause harm to them. Having said that I agree with you that the statement about what may have been in the past is lacking some desired foundation. Again, plants are generally not described as having flesh. The description could be seen as including insects though.
I wonder if there is any good way of knowing for sure which it is?

I thought it was what Noah covered the ark with?

According to Arnold Mendez, here, if the cubit is about 18 inches, this means that the ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts.
Many writers on the subject of Noah's ark have different estimates for the amount of animals that the ark would have to carry. Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book, The Genesis Flood, estimate that approximately 35,000 animals would have to be placed on board the ark. In another book written on the subject, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe states that 16,000 animals could easily be cared for on the ark.
Mendez uses the figure of 40,000 animals.
Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size of a sheep. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The ark’s total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words, all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. (Additional details in his website.)

Hmm, and could 8 people daily care for 35,000 animals in a satisfactory way? Just providing them all with water could prove to be more than eight fulltime jobs.

Yes, it does seem a daunting task, just caring and cleaning up after so many animals. And what about the task of feeding all the animals that eat other animals? Now, someone noted that God could have put them into a state of "hibernation", but there's nothing said about this, so that's not a valid argument to me since MOST animals don't hibernate.

And I'm not trying to say it's impossible, the Bible says "ALL" things are possible through God, I'm just saying it is not feasible. While it is "possible" it's not "probable". And you can still take away the same message from the story, you can still love God, we can still be saved. But I don't find any real possibility in ALL life on earth being placed on one boat, and then the entire earth being re-populated with the wealth of life on it as we know it.


And one last point, I'm not sure people are taking into account the "infrastructure" of the ark. People keep giving neat numbers about how big is was based on outside dimensions. However, there would have to be an enourmous amount of internal walls and support structures for a "building" that size. And then incorporate the style of "building" the ark was, and the technology and resources of the time. For instance, how long of a span can the type of wood used in the ark actually span without support. And so thus, looking at things like this, walls, cages, internal support, plumbing, stairs, smoke stacks, refrigeration units (oh, sorry, those weren't invented yet), ummm, pantries, and such, how much room did that take up. And were those things taken into consideration when making these calculations? I don't see any mention of those things. I note these things, because, if you measure the outside of your house, then calculate the square footage, you will NOT have an accurate measurement of the internal USABLE square footage. You will have a number that is inaccurate for measuring the amount of room you can actually use.

Are there any other passages that we take as parable and not fact? Are all parable's noted to be such? Is it possible that this could be a story to help us learn a lesson, and yet not infact fact? I still love God, I still take Him as my saviour, and can't wait for His return, however, I do not take the flood to be literal, only a way to teach me something. This viewpoint does not make me a non-believer, nor a supporter of satan, nor someone who would deny God. I talk with God daily, and I've received no message that I'm wrong with this line of thinking and reasoning.

And then on top of it all, I still think it's ok to not agree on everything. There's rarely a time when all members of any group of people agree fully on all things. I think the thing to remember is that we must ask God for his grace, and though Him, we will be lifted up to Heaven. Praise be to the Holiest!

The all things are possible argument holds no water since it would make the building of an ark unnecessary.

Rosangela, the animals were not dead. They can't just fit on the deck.

Holds no water, hahaha, LOL, nice use of a pun.

But seriously, if you go with the logic of all things are possible, and thus not necessary, then that wipes us clean off the map. God had no "need" to create us, or do anything else. In fact, since God is omni-everything, nothing is "necessary".

Hi 'fun2believe'

In re-reading my post below, I see that my words could come across as rather sharp. Please realize ahead of time that they aren't meant that way. Imagine a friendly tone of voice, okay? (I was writing with a smile.)


Well, how would you expect people to survive a whole year in a huge boat if they didn't have anything to do?

As for "animals that eat other animals" -- are you sure that's what they did on the ark? We know that modern lions can survive on a total vegetarian diet. (Ever hear of "Little Tyke," the lion who refused to eat meat?)

Neither is the incarnation or resurrection of Jesus. So shall we do away with that too on the basis of improbability?Oh? So please explain "the same message" in your own words. And please don't forget the use the New Testament writers made of the story.Did you read the whole thread? (It seems to me you're ignoring some points already made.)

The Bible only records that representatives of all "kinds" of animals went into the ark. We don't know just how many "kinds" there originally were. As an example, wolves, coyotes, dingos all the breeds of dogs probably came from just one pair of young female doges. The mammoths and various elephants all probably descended from one young pair of 'mamephants' saved in the ark. (No that's not a scientific name.

Re-populations happens much faster than you may imagine. Think of one pair of rabbits taken to Australia, for instance.

And if you're only going to accept the portions of the Bible that you consider "possible," based on your experience in today's world, you will be left with a very small God -- one whose power is circumscribed by the conjecture of modern scientists and historians.


Good thinking on your part. However, it becomes a negligible objection when compared to other boats. They, too, need "infrastructure." As for what the timbers could support -- we are told that the trees were much stronger and harder than any known today. So the ark was not 1/2 solid wood. And by most calculations, less than 1/2 the space would be occupied by the people and the animals.
Good questions -- except that other Bible writers referred to the flood as fact, not parable. So did Jesus Himself. Do you suppose He was deceived as to the nature of the story?

Such as?

Do you suppose that when God does not give you a direct message regarding your thinking and reasoning, that it means that it is correct?

Then why were the Bereans commended who went home to study whether the things God told them were true? According to your line of reasoning, they should have been able to tell directly by God's telling them. (Instead, Paul commended them for studyingand using the resoning powers God gave them.)

No argument there.

However, ther arebiblical interpretations that are consistent with the rest of Scripture, and there are interpretations that are not consistent with the rest of Scripture.

There are interpretations that reveal a great big God, and there are interpretations that picture a very small God.

And you are free to choose which to believe.

I can't believe anyone would suggest that Little Tyke, a carnivore raised in captivity, represents the carnivores that were taken on the ark. We should at least give a semblance of trying to be honest.

I don't know what to say about the suggestion that the incarnation or the resurrection are improbable. Are we just making arguments for the sake of arguments? Are we so enamoured of our doctrines that we will stoop to any level to detract from truth?

Inga,

Great responses, way to get us all using our critical thiking skills! That's what we should be doing, thinking, asking, testing, finding the true Light.

I'm also writing with a big grin on my face, just glad that we have such a great place to discuss our most passionate feelings.

Now, on to the nitty gritty. I don't have any expectations about someone would do for a year on a boat, but I do have questions about the reality of someone caring for so many animals, on a boat, with VERY limited resources.

As for "little tyke", she may have infact been vegetarian, but she was not vegan. She did infact and regularly eat eggs and milk, both containing the necessary building blocks for life in the form of protein, which came from other animals, not plants! But then you didn't say she was vegan, just vegetarian, but the implication was there that that type of animal does not need other animals for survival, which is clearly not the case. And these animals were clearly made/adapted for meat eating, look at the sharp teeth(they don't work well for eating grass), long claws(hmmmmmm,,,, used for taking down prey animals) and powerful jaws used for crushing cartilage and bone, not smashing up grass and leaves). And if they are decended from other animals as you suggest (modern dogs being from one set of parents, as well as elephants, and thus I assume you also would include big cats), then those animals would also have been meat eaters.

Possible and probable are all we have. We have NO way to actually measure, define, count, or in any other way scientifically prove or disprove(through research, that's reproducable by others under the same conditions, at any time, thus "making" proof as we know it) anything about the bible. There's no question it's taken on faith, I think that's what the whole bible is about, faith.

The same message is a personal messge, the way all things in the bible are. My point on this is proven by the people here. All members of the same church, yet see how we see the same things differently? Look how many "christian" religions exist, all based on the exact same bible that you and I read. So it has to be persoanal, there's no other way. Faith and religion is a completely personal journey, no one on earth can tell you if you are right or wrong, only God can do that! So for me, it is the same message, it may not be for you, or the writers of the new testament, not even Jesus. Jesus had a different experience, as we all do, thus making Him different, and NO two people are the same, not even identical twins. If it was the same lesson for everyone, there would be no difference between people, we would all be exactly the same, and I'm pretty sure that's not what God wanted, or made.

Yeah, I've read the whole thread, I started it. No, repopulations don't happen faster than I think. They happen only as fast as "nature" allows. All animals are capable of reproduction, but only when they mature [censored], and that is a known fact, and most all animals have a known time before [censored] matureation, thus meaning that it can only happen as fast as it can, it can't change. There weren't bunnies that got off the ark, and had baby bunnies, that then had baby bunnies right after birth! Sorry, not buying into that one.

Not sure how my question about infrastructure is negligable based on other boats? What other boats are you talking about? All boats would have to have infrastructure, something to hold the walls up, ever done any construction? Who told us the trees were stronger and better? And how can you say how much space was taken up if you don't even know how many or what types of animals were on the boat? You can't have the argument go both ways. You can't say how much space was needed for an unknown amout of stuff.

Deception is a part of human nature, starting with Eve. Here's a way to look at it. Up until a few years ago, it was a "fact" that peptic ulcers were caused by stress! Ah, but through research (testable, reproducable by others at any time, anywhere) we have learned they are in FACT caused by Helicobacter Pylori, a bug that grows in your stomach. Now, these other writers of the "facts" about the flood were not there. They didn't ride on the ark, they didn't help build it. They did not see it, or touch the walls, or walk within it's cavernous hollow belly. So "facts" have to be tempered with a little reason, understanding the limitations of the "fact".

Once again, lessons in life are very individual, and not always the same for everyone. And yeah, I think God and I are pretty close, we have an amazing relationship, we communicate very often. We speak to each other clearly, so yeah, I do believe that's what that means.

And we see very eye to eye on the right to have different beliefs. Sure, God is kind of who you make Himm out to be. If He's BIG in your life, that may be because you make Him that way. You search Him out, you obey and trust Him, you speak with Him, you bring Him into your life. And so if He's a small God, or not God at all, then that's because you chose to make Him that way. He will not force his way into your life, you have to invite Him. You have to want Him there, thus it's all what you make of it.

I think there are some very common threads with people that accept God in thier lives, but I don't think there are any two people on earth that have the same relationship with God. I don't think there are any two people who have the same experience, who have the same communication with God. Our relationship with Him is a personal relationship. Our relationship with other humans is a very different thing all together, as we are human and God is not.

I'm impressed with you ability to ask the tough questions, and look both at your own life and the life of Jesus for leadership. I think that's what God wants us to do. My reasoning for this is that if He wanted us all to follow the exact same rules, and know the exact same info, and be the exact same type of people, He'd have been much more specific. My reasioning goes that He would give each and every person a set of rules to follow, something reproducable, something tangable. Now, some will make the argument that that's what the Bible is. Well, then how does that apply to those before the Bible, or those who have lived and dies without ever even knowing of it's existance?

So yeah, I see this as a personal journey with God. Now, that's not to say we can't/shouldn't worship together. In fact, I believe we should worship together. We are much stronger in numbers than we are alone. Plus, we can hold up others when they have lost their strength, give support to those who need it. While it's a prive journey for me, I can and will, help others any way I can. If my own life can be a candle unto the Lord, I'll let Him direct my life, and follow His commands. Just like I'm doing here.

I'm glad to be here, how very healing this is.

The author's point was just that the ark was large enough to accomodate all the animals. If they could all be housed in one deck, but were housed in two (since the ark had three), this meant they had an extra space to move about.

I'm delighted to see that we have a mutual acquaintance in "Little Tyke."

Darius, the point is in the assumptions. Some (possibly including you) assume that the animals that we now see as carnivores were fed other animals on the ark.

Why do you assume that? How do you know that?

My point of bringing up Little Tyke was that another scenario is just as possible because carnivores can stay healthy on a vegetarian diet even in modern times. The "in captivity" part would certainly apply to the animals in the ark, wouldn't it?

And, by the way, do you believe God created animals carnivorous? Come to think of it, do you believe God created animals, or do you believe they evolved from a happenstance combination of organic molecules in primordial slime?

Another bit of food for thought: According to the biblical record, was the flood a "natural" event, or was it an instance of God doing a specific act on this planet, contrary to the usual ways of nature?

If it was a singularity (a one-time event), is it reasonable to apply today's experience to that event?


Just who is stooping to detract from truth?

And what is the basis of your "truth"? If you do not accept the historicity of the Flood, it is evident that you do not accept the straightforward reading of the Bible as the ultimate basis of your "truth." What else colors your judgment?

The "else" that tells you that a literal world-wide flood is improbable would also tell you that the resurrection and the incarnation is "improbable."

The resurrection lies outside the realm of scientific investigation. Indeed, I would assume that it is altogether outside the realm of scientific probability.

Ditto for the incarnation.

I repeat: If we reject the biblical historical account of the world-wide flood on the basis of improbability, to be consistent, we would have to reject all accounts of miracles, as well as the account of the incarnation and the resurrection.

On second thought, you're probably better qualified to comment on the probability of the resurrection and the incarnation. Care to explain the probability of the incarnation using the statistical analysis methods at your disposal?

Waiting expectantly for your reply to my questions above.

Inga

One thing I think is being forgotten is that, when God created the world, there wasn't to be any death in it, therefore all the animals were created as vegans. If after the sin some of them became carnivorous, this can't have happened at once, nor in a short time. Probably these animals remained as omnivorous during a long time before they finally adopted a meat diet. And maybe at the time of the flood most of the animals which today are carnivorous were still omnivorous.

Good points, Rosangela.

But we don't need to know at just what stage towards carnivous certain animals were at the time of the Flood.

If even lions can live as vegans today, surely God could keep them alive as vegans on the ark.

fun2believe,

This is in fact off topic, but "an expert panel convened by the Academy of Behavioral Medicine research concluded that ulcers are not purely an infectious disease and that psychological factors do play a significant role. Researchers are examining how stress might promote H. pylori infection. For example, Helicobacter pylori thrives in an acidic environment, and stress has been demonstrated to cause the production of excess stomach acid. ... Psychological stress probably functions most often as a cofactor with H pylori. ... Unravelling the aetiology of peptic ulcer will make an important contribution to the biopsychosocial model of disease." (Wikipedia)

Inga,

Of course I agree.

Ummmmmm, what lion do you know of that was a vegan? A vegan means NO animal products, and as the story is quite clear, the lion in question DID in fact eat eggs and milk, thus making her vegetarian, not vegan.

If you or a lion ate only plant material, you would soon die and so would the lion. There are somethings the body needs that you can't get from just plants. Now a days, you can be a healthy vegan, however, you must take supplements to make up for things missing in your diet. And those things have to be processed, in a factory, so that you can take them as a pill. So neither you nor a lion can live a "healthy" life on plants alone, you must have supplements, and thus not meeting the definition of only eathing things from plants.

Rosangela,

That's great and true info. However, the actual "cause" of peptic ulcer is the H. pylori, there are a ton of things that can make it more likely to happen or to make you more susceptible to the infection. Yes, stress might promote, or make it worse, more likely, or even more complicated, however, the "cause" is H. pylori. Like many things in medicine, lots of contributing factors can make things worse.

A world without death is a world without hair because hair is made up of dead cells. We are far too developed in our knowledge for us to continue repeating ideas that are so patently false. Lions have always been carnivores. They were created with teeth designed for tearing up meat. Zebras were created with camouflage so they could escape their predators.

AMEN!

Death without sin, huh Darius? You must also believe that there will be death in the new earth? That is, if you believe at all in a new earth.
As someone asked, wouldn't you have to conclude that the body of a tiger is something designed to hunt and kill antelopes? A machine that can kill and that has to kill to survive? Examples like this one are millions in nature and most of them are worst in cruelty, violence and suffering. Why would God create such vicious animals?

fun2believe,

Most people who harbour the organism (H. pilory) never have ulcers, while a few who have never been infected with it develop ulcer disease. More about this can be read here.

Very true on both, I never have said that's not the case. What I said was that the cause was H. pylori.

Just as Tuberculosis is "caused" by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Now in days not so long ago, there were many "causes" associated with "consumption" (as it was known at the turn of the century), however, with the miracles of modern science, we know the "cause" of TB is Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

There are a lot of bugs we carry around, but do not have "active" infections. One example is Tuberculosis. You can be a "carrier" or "host"; or you can have an "active" infection. You can "test" positive for it on a skin test (PPD) and yet NOT have an active infection.

Another great example of today is MRSA. You can carry it around with you, and yet, not "actively" have an infection. There are a whole host of bugs like this, but I think you get my point.

As far as co-factors are concerned, I agree. But not that they "cause" the ulcer. Just as with heart disease, there are a lot of known cofactors, ie.. obesity, smoking, high blood pressure, etc, etc, etc. So the cause of peptic ulcer is H. pylori, but lots of things can make them worse, more prevelant, or more likely. And those things are well worth knowing, just like with heart disease. The more we know about the contributing factors, the better we can manage the disease. So yes, I agree that psycological factors do play a significant role, they just don't cause them.

But alas, I know daryl will be getting after us for gettting way off subject. And he'll be right, we are. I'd love to discuss this more if you like, either PM or another thread.

I would like to say that I like the way you think, research, and construct your information. I very much enjoy learning, and am always looking to learn something new.

True enough.

However, do you believe that God created animals to prey upon other animals? And, by extension, do you see carnivores in the new earth, which is supposed to be a restoration to Edenic conditions?

Why/how do you conclude that the animals on the ark had to be carnivorous?

That's not altogether true. The only factor not available in hygienically "clean" plant food is Vitamin B12, and the animals get it from exactly the same source as we can -- from bacteria. These bacteria live in the soil and in the human gut. Once we have been "cleaned" of bacteria by anti-biotics, it is true that we can no longer get enough Vitamin B12 from the bacteria in the gut alone. I believe that the current quandary of vegans lacking Vitamin B12 is not reflective of our original creation. We have good reason to believe that, originally, we could get enough from our tne bacteria living in our own gut from the mouth on down.

However, if we are willing to be less "hygienic" and eat more vegetables fresh from our garden, without vigorous cleaning, we will likely ingest B12 that way too. And the body needs only infinitesimally small amounts because it recybles B12 quite efficiently. (There are other complications for those who are not in perfect health, but that's another subject altogether.)

However, what I said above is really not relevant for keeping animals on the ark for a year. For these reasons:
1) It takes several years of ingesting no Vitamin B12 for a deficiency to develop.
2) That vegan animals ingested no Vitamin B12 is extremely unlikely. (I don't think Noah sprayed their food with Lysol or autoclaved it. )
Not true at all.

I suggest you don't believe all you read from the omnivorous propaganda machine.

When I had my oldest children, the health benefits of a plant-based diet were not well known, and doctors and nurses expressed great concern when they discovered that's what our diet consisted of. They were surethat young children needed cow's milk, at least, to grow up healthy and strong. Fortunately I knew better, and if I didn't, the fact that our vegan boys were consistently the healthiest and biggest in any neighborhood we invaded should have convinced me.

Having said all that, I believe there's a place for supplements. But they are not required under ideal conditions, and I'm quite sure they were not required in the ark.

Concerning carnivourous animals, there is nothing around in nature that would suggest how such a world would look like. If God did indeed create the world in such a way that nothing that was alive ever died, there must have been a recreation after the advent of sin. Not only do we have the many carnivorous animals that either prey on other animals or eat carcases, but we also have the balance between carnivorous and herbivorous animals that leads to total havoc if the carnivores were to be removed by human interferance for instance. If you were to kill all the carnivores in the Canadian forests for instance, there would initially be a huge increase in deer. This might look like a good thing, until the time a few summers later when there simply is not enough plants around for the new, reinforced herd to eat. They would be all over gardens and plantations eating up that which humans had planted for other purposes. They would also not get enough food individually and lots of the deer would be too weak to survive a canadian winter. So you would again be down a smaller herd and the cycle would repeat itself.

So consider this, you might be happy that your new earth pet dog will stay alive througout eternity if God recreates the world in such a fasion, but you will also never ever se a puppy again. You might be happy that your pet rabbit will ever be around, but you will never see a baby rabbit again. Is the picture still as clearcut as it might have looked like just a minute ago?

Thomas,

According to God's original plan, the reproduction of both animals and humans would cease when the earth reached the ideal number of inhabitants. And, as to the new earth, we know that after a time we won't have the pleasure of seeing again human babies or children. However, the pleasures we will enjoy there will surpass by far those we enjoy here.

Will we still be human?

Not exactly in the same way we are here.

Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

So God has to concede that what He thought was very good at creation did have some room for improvement after all?

A rose bud is perfect, yet it will become a full blooming rose.

A full blooming rose is no less perfect than is a rose bud. Both rose bud and blooming rose passes on their perfection to the new seed they are designed to promote. Thus perfection yelds perfection.

Sure, and that's my point. Just because something was created perfect, this doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

The rose bud was created to bloom and then die to make space for the growing seed. Humans recreated androgynous is a different level of "improvement" where the original doesn't become the new by design but by redesign.

What? Where do you get this information from? Why go through the trouble of procreation and then take away the pleasure if he could just create the ideal population?

The logical conclusion of your reasoning would be that man was created to die in order to make space for the upcoming generations. Otherwise the world would be overpopulated. Is this what you believe?

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it."

Man should "fill" the earth. What do you think would happen after the earth was full? Was man created to live in overpopulated cities or in beautiful farms?

That would be the logical conclusion only if the flower was the essence of the rose. However, that is only true with the florist. There is root, stem and leaves which survive from one flowering to the next. Well, the leaves might not depending on where the rosebush lives, but the roots and stem will.

We are not told what would happen after earth was full. We can only speculate.

Well spoken V. I must fully agree with those sentiments.

God said very clearly that both man and animals were only to eat plants, in Genesis 1:29,30. If we believe that, then God did not create animals carnivorous. Certainly these animals did not needto eat meat, as has been suggested.

Some things God has revealed, and other things He has not revealed. I see no value in speculating about things He has not revealed and which have no bearing on our present or future well-being.

I trust that God knew what He was doing, knows what He is doing and knows what He will do. He has revealed sufficient about His plans for us to be able to trust Him.

God did not write the book of Genesis. Just think. Such a wise Creator creates animals some of which are carnivores and some are herbivores but declares that they must all eat vegetation. But some do not have the digestive capacity to handle vegetation. Wow.

I don't think this is the case. The fact that there will be no marriage in the new earth makes clear that it wasn't God's plan that human beings procreated forever. Of course the same logic can be applied to animals.
How can someone believe that a God of love made creatures to kill and destroy other creatures? Have you seen a lion kill an antelope? Do you think that scene is a pleasant one to behold? Do you think that scene is in harmony with a perfect world and a loving God? The fact that there will be no carnivorous animals in the new earth says a lot about God.

“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:6-9)

Some resources for those seriously interested in the apparent conflict with observed "reality" and the biblical record that all creatures were given plant matter to eat:
Creation's Original Diet and Changes Since the Fall is a fairly lengthy, somewhat technical article for ths studious.

For lighter reading and actual examples among today's animal population:
Catching a Kinkajou - a bird classified as carnivorous due to its head and teeth structure turns out to be ..
. can you guess?
Piranha - a definite "proof" of a created carnivore, or is it?
Air attack - by parrots! Can you believe it?

And back to the original topic:
Noah's Ark - A Feasibiliity Study (I don't agree with all of Browning's assumption, such as the necessity of dried meat in the food supply. However, it is a worthwhile study on the "feasibility" aspect.)

Well, 'nuf for today ...

You can't believe a loving God can stand the sight of a lion killing an antelope but He can barbecue millions of humans in a lake of fire. Interesting doctrinal positions.

That's your spinning, Darius, not my words.

It would be nice if you would enter into genuine dialogue by actually addressing the argument from a biblical perspective, rather than taking drive-by pot shots at the people involved.

So, can you address the argument on a biblical basis? For that matter, a bit of science would be fine too.

WARNING TO DARIUS!!!!

Your post has been reported and is being reviewed by Staff.

Taking these kind of drive-by pot-shots at the people involved, as it has been described here, is unacceptable here at MSDAOL, therefore, either enter into genuine dialogue, or refrain from these type of posts.

This is not at all what I said. I said this is not a sight which is in harmony with a perfect and ideal world created by a loving God. Of course, in the less-than-ideal conditions brought about by the entrance of sin, death itself became a necessary evil.


As I said, with the entrance of sin, death itself became a necessary evil. The destruction of sin is necessary for the good of the universe, and unfortunately those who cling to sin will perish in its destruction. However, even to them this will be a merciful thing - death is preferable to the miserable quality of life sin affords.

Why are we afraid to admit to what we believe? Must I use a thousand words to say what I can say in twenty so that people can feel good about themselves? The bottom line is just as I posted. She holds to conflicting beliefs about death.

Rosangela,
You said, "I don't think this is the case. The fact that there will be no marriage in the new earth makes clear that it wasn't God's plan that human beings procreated forever."

Well, here's a question based on your line of thinking.

God created Adam and Eve, two perfect beings, with NO need to recreate (per your suppostition). Now, why create two DIFFERENT sex's if you don't need to recreate? Why have a man and a woman, why not just two of the same, or two people who are androgynous? Or, if they were infact created to reproduce, how does your argument stand up? Why would Adam and Eve "cover" up after original sin, they wouldn't even have any genetialia to cover up, as per your line of reasoning tells me they wouldn't have any sexual organs; no breasts, no ovaries, nor any ability to reproduce. Did those organs "evolve", at the moment sin happened? As that same line of reasoning has been used with the animal argument.

I say, if there was no need to reproduce, per God making perfect people, and no need for death, He would not need to make 2 different types of people to reproduce. But if you say, well, they were to reproduce and take over the world, then would God have plans to some day remove those parts of the "perfect" beings bodies, after Eden was full?

You see, I just don't know how you can think that there was NEVER to be death. Everything on this planet goes thourgh cycles, life and death, there's nothing that does not. Not even Jesus, when He came here. There is no physical evidence for eternal life, without death. No physical evidence in any type of record, and even Our Father's Son died, just like everything else. All things in nature (and life as we know it) are built on the premise of reproduction, and thus death.

Now, if I'm wrong on my line of questions, please (I know you will) let me know how I'm wrong, and I'll rephrase it.

What conflicting beliefs do I hold to about death?

Here's another question regarding the flood.

Were there rainbow's before the flood?

fun2believe,

What I said was, "The fact that there will be no marriage in the new earth makes clear that it wasn't God's plan that human beings procreated forever."
Before sin, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). So, of course, God's plan was that the human race multiplied until the earth was full. What would happen after that is a matter of speculation. One of the possibilities is that, after the earth was full, marriage as an institution would continue but reproduction would cease, that is, everybody would be married but no more children would be born. Another possibility is that the human race would be elevated to the angelic state (like Jesus said will happen after the resurrection), and then marriage itself would cease to exist.
Anyway, what I don't understand is why you think a loving God would create people to suffer and die. The Bible says that
"The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and that
"As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, ... so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
So death is the result of sin. If there had been no sin, there would have been no death.

Death is the result of life. For without life, there can be no death.

Who said that death is suffering? Have you ever died? How can you say it's horrible for God to watch a gazelle eaten by a lion. Maybe He likes to see His creatures doing what they do best, like lions eating gazelle's. You think it's awful to see death, but not everyone see's it that way. In death there is life.

Your own church killed a baboon, so that they could transplant it's heart into a child. Your very own church, the one you pay tithe to. And it was the work of the Lord they were doing. So maybe God can kill for good reason's, like saving us. He sent His son to die, for us. So maybe God does find satisfaction in death, who are we to say.

You don't understand how I can see God using death, and I don't see how you are unable to look around the world you live in and not see the same thing.

And I don't see life without death, it was part of the original plan, you can't say it's not. Clearly death was part of the plan in the fact that it was a choice for us. God gave us the choice, life or death, eat the fruit or don't. We both knew what would happen, so it was planned for. Death and God go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

"The above expressed feelings and ideas are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of the SDA church, the Bible, EGW, or anybody else for that matter. You dont' have to agree with them, but I would encourage to look at these idea's, weigh their merit, and consult God on them."

If sperm that did not fertilize the egg did not die we could have had a bit of a traffic jam in Eve's fallopian tubes. And everyone knows that hair consists of dead cells. It is obvious that the death spoken of in the texts Rosangela is using would be senseless death such as we hear about everyday.

What about the death of the plants we eat? Were the plant's not alive before we ate them? And by eating fruit, you are eating the unborn (not grown seed) of that plant.

Should we discuss weather plants are alive or not? Or does the rule only apply to some types of life and not others. Because I don't recall the bible telling me the difference.

And are there different types of death? What kind of death's are there? I only know of one type of death. How many types are there?

Now, you might be of the belief that God didn't want us to die, but how can you argue that death was not planned? He gave us the option, BEFORE sin ever happened! How is that NOT planned death? He realized that death could happen, He had to have some other choice for us, other than life, since He had already give us that. Life and death go hand in hand.

We all fight death so much, maybe because we don't understand it. None of us has died, so no one can talk from experience. Maybe there's something about death that God has not revealed to us yet? I'm not pushing for death, I don't want to die, life is cool. But death is a part of the plan, for sure in my eyes. I am glad God gave us death, so we can appreciate life. If all you ever knew was the color blue, you'd have no idea how great of a color red is.

Without Satan, you wouldn't fully appreciate how great God is!

Without death, how could you really appreciate life?

fun2believe,

So your idea is that God finds satisfaction in death, and that God and death go hand in hand. Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion.
The fact that God foresaw the existence of sin and death is completely different from believing that death was part of God's original plan. Creating a world adapted for death would mean that God decided to support the devil's agenda. I don't think this was the case. What happens is that God overrules evil for good.
The Bible says that death is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26). And one of the most significant promises God gives is that, in the new earth, “death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

Darius, you are presupposing that the way things happen today is the way they happened before sin.
What happens is that, while the cells within the strand of hair are dead, the hair root is alive, for it makes the hair grow. The fact that the cells within the strand are dead is good, otherwise the hair couldn't be cut without causing pain. But who said that perfect beings must have their hair cut? Do you imagine the angels having their hair cut?

Do you really think this is sound logic?

I agree completely that God realized that death could happen. However, because it could happen doesn't imply it had to. The choice we were given was the choice to sin. Death comes from sin. If Adam and Eve had chosen not to sin, they wouldn't have died.

The reason the death was not planned is because the sin was not planned. That is, God realized it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin, but God did not intend or plan that that should happen. They chose to sin *contrary* to God's plans and intentions.

Is not the real problem here that we have no way of imagining how things would happen if the happened in some genuinely different way than they happen now. Maybe no lives will be lost on earth recreated, that is possible, but for us to say that we know what that would acctually look like is just foolishness. Nothing in our experience here can give any hints at what a world without lost life would look like. If you start to argue down this path, then hair and nails must be done away with, skin as we know it must be done away with, the stomach and intestine system must be entierly remodeled. Maybe God can keep his original design of the brain, perhaps. What may look like a simple argument about wether one will have to cut ones hair or not swiftly turns out to be an argument about God taking us and remaking us into something which is not a human body by any definitions now known. This is conceviable if one has the view that humans are souls which inhabits bodies, where God could easily take the human from an earthly body and place him or her in a new and different body. With the adventist view that there is no such thing as a human without a body, this is just foolishness as well.

Dogma is so important to us that we have lost sight of reason. I don't know what to say because this is really sad.

dog·ma /ˈdɔgmə, ˈdɒg-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dawg-muh, dog-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -mas, -ma·ta /-mətə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-muh-tuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

So sad, too bad. It's clear to me (and I'm sure to others both on here and around the world) that the SDA chruch is more concerned with keeping the letter of the law, than actually following the law. It's SO important to know all the rules, we over-scrutinize the words in the bible, we check and re-check what ellen said. We spend so much time making sure others are following OUR rules, that we can't even figure out what type of person OTHERS see us as.

IF you could all just take a minute, and step back. Look objectively at the church we have created. Is it REALLY bringing people closer to christ? Are people more happy inside the church than outside of it? We certainly don't NEED the church, God even say's so. So why have it? I think it's fine if it does something good(like bring people to Christ), but it's clear it's doing the opposite.

Look at the falling numbers. Look at all the scandel and controversy. You want to say that's it's because it's the "end time" and we are getting closer to heaven. But are we? With the way this chruch is run, and the beliefs people in it push upon others (yeah, that's right, push.) When was the last time you went to a different chruch, and presented like a lay person? Try it, see what you find. You'll find people pushing their beliefs and DOGMA's onto you, not offering you the chance to decide for yourself. God does not do that to us, why does this church?

God gave us this ability to reason. Reasoning is not a result of Sin. God gave us the ability to reason, and even demanded it of us. He gave us choice, and the ability to look at BOTH sides of the coin. Why can't this chruch do that? How long will we keep driving people away from the Light? A chruch is only as strong as it's members (the way a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link), and it's the member's that make up the chruch. So this church is weak and narrowsighted, because the people REFUSE to use the skills that God gave us.

Jesus said to take the narrow path, but it sure is hard to navigate that path, when we keep looking down into our rule books on how to navigate, instead of using the perfectly good eyes and mind that we have. Maybe we've missed the path all together, all the while looking into books for the path. Not all maps are correct, and when it get's dark outside, sometimes it's better to turn off the flashlight, put away the map, and use our other sense's to help us find the way.

And when ANY one of you is perfect, you let me know, because then I'll have an example here on earth of perfection, and I'll know you are filled with the Lord. But untill then, how about we all just try to find the path to take, the lesser traveled one.

I'd be interested in some explanation from those who believe that the Genesis account of a world-wide flood is a parable.

In a parable, the main actors/actions signify something different than in the story. For example, in the parable of the Sower that sowed in different places, the Sower is Christ (often working through individuals), the different kinds of grounds are the hearts, etc.

So in the "parable of the world-wide flood," what's what?

I can't tell you that, it's not what I was sent here to do. I'm here to help people understand that it's not the "dogma" that matters. It's GOD. In fact, nothing else matters. I don't have all the answers, only God does. I've stopped looking to PEOPLE for answers. I ask God.

And when we talk, He tells me the answers. Because we have a relationship. He and I. He does not take into account how often I go to church. He does not take into account, if I raise my hands in church. He doesn't care if the ark ever floated or not. Those are NOT the points He's teaching me.

He's showing me His love. It's shinning out to others. It grow's brighter every day I spend walking with my Lord. I focus on HIM, not a book. I'm looking up into His eyes, so we can communicate. I like to look people in the eye when I'm talking to them, not into a book. This way, I know they are listening, not just hearing what I'm saying. There is a very big difference.

I suggest you re-read 1 Cor. 15:

35 But some one will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
36 You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37 And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
39 For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
40 There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Just so you know, I don't believe it is a parable. It is representational language of a process we could never understand. How could man ever hope to understand the ways of the Creator?

fun2believe,

Everything on this earth is imperfect. We are imperfect, and we are the church; therefore the church is imperfect. But if we place ourselves in God's hands, He can use us to make the church and the world a little better place.
Now, regarding the discussions in this forum, I would like to make clear that nobody here is trying to push his/her views upon you or anybody else. Provided they respect the beliefs of the SDA church, which is one of the forum rules, everybody here is free to expose his/her views, but the others are also free to agree or disagree. The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that that person is trying to push his/her views upon you.

If Paul is telling us how our future bodies will be, then I was right when I said that God will give us bodes which do not correspond with anything we know about today. But if Paul is making an illustration about our spiritual life after having died and been ressurected with Christ through baptism, then maybe we should be a bit more careful with what other conclusions we draw from the passage.

One of the favorites expressions of Christ was "It is written." He overcame the devil by quoting the Bible.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"

He proved that He was the Saviour by quoting the Scriptures.

Luke 24:25-27 Then He said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Luke 24:44-48 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

The prophets demonstrated that Jesus was the Saviour by quoting the Scriptures. The expression "It is written" can be found 77 times only in the NT.

If Jesus, the Lord, used the Scriptures, preached the Scriptures, lived by every word of the Scriptures, how can we hope to survive without the Scriptures?

It's easy to know what Paul is referring to. Just read the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 15.

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up——if in fact the dead do not rise.
16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

Concluding that God will give us bodies which do not correspond to anything we know about today seems a bit much to me. I'm sure there is much about resurrected bodies which will be completely new, but there is much that won't be as well, don't you think? For example, we will have 2 arms, 2 hands, 2 eyes, etc.; our manner of thinking will be the same (without the forgetfulness and stupid mistakes)

Regarding the second point about it being an illustration, I'm not following that. The whole chapter is talking about the resurrection. It's centered on the resurrection of Jesus, which is dealing with His literal resurrection, where he was physically dead, but raised up with a spiritual body. Do you not understand it this way? Our resurrected bodies will be like Jesus' was. That seems clear to me. Do you disagree?

Rosangela, Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life, but they are they which testify of Me."

I would think we would ask, "How can we get along without Christ?" Christ lived by depending upon His Father.

The Scriptures are a means to an end. The end is knowing God. The Scriptures provide a line of communication, not the only one, but certainly a vital one. There is no doubt we need to know the Scriptures, but not in and of themselves, but as a means to an end, the end being knowing God.

I suspect (hope!) you will agree with all this, and that I'm making a needless clarification.

Tom,

I sure agree. It's useless to know the Bible from cover to cover without letting the Bible lead us to its Author. That's why the work of the Holy Spirit is so important. He is the only One who can transform cold written words in the living words of a loving God.

Good! I have met some who have engaged in a form of Bibliolitry, where the Bible becomes a type of idol. Well, from Jesus' words to the Pharisees, we can see that they were doing that.

One of the things I liked reading from the Spirit of Prophecy was in the Desire of Ages where she talks about how there are heathen who will be saved (I'm sure you know the passage, so I won't quote it). This shows that we are saved by knowing God through Jesus Christ (who can reveal God to a person in many ways), and not by simply believing certain words we read in Scripture, which, unfortunately, there are those who seem to believe.

As I said, if ressurection bodies have no exchange of cells where old cells fall off dead, then some of the most important parts of the body will no longer be what they are today. A person can live without an arm, a hand, an eye, a leg and so forth. No human can survive without skin or a stumach/intestine system. Both of these have replenishment and exchange of cells as a crucial part of how they work, and were this exchange to stop, you would be dead in a short time (dont know exactly how short but I imagen within a month. I confess not taking a very close look at the passage. As I said, I dont know that it makes any substantial difference to what I have said. As you said, Jesus was dead and then He was ressurected. Whats characteristic of His ressurection body? We do not know if it was working any different in any biological sence. We know that He ate and had His scars, but He also walked through walls and disappeared unexpectedly, perhaps like teleportation. Will we also be able to move through walls and locked doors and teleport when we get ressurection bodies? Locksmiths will go out of buisness if thats true. My summary is that any biological differences between bodies as we know them and ressurection bodies are for the time being pure speculation and nothing beyond that. Rosangela has no foundation for saying that hair cells will not be dead no more than I have any foundation for speculating about a ressurection body skin.

Adam named all the animal species in less than a day, which suggests a small number. God guided the animals onto the ark, which suggests only the original species entered the ark (no dinosaurs, etc). The caged animals would have been inactive, which suggests they didn't require a lot of food. Thus, I have no problem believing the story as it appears in the Bible.

God did not create dinosaurs? Who else in this universe has the creative power to creat them then? Scripture says that God created everything that was created through the Word/Jesus. Dinosaurs existed so either God did not bring all sorts of animals on the ark or they died out after the event.

Ah ... so we have some point of agreement. I agree that "we could never understand" how the Creator made this world.

Does that mean, though, that we need to reject Genesis 1 as a historical account because we cannot understand how God did it?

Do you know how Jesus raised people from the dead?

Do you believe that he raised people from the dead?

Do you accept what God says in His written word?

Does he tell you things that contradict the biblical record?

By my observation, Yes! Those who have joined our church the last couple years definitely testify to the fact -- in spite of the fact that they have joined a bunch of imperfect people.
Where does God say so?

And I'm really curious where you got all that "information" we are supposed to "look at."

(Not saying the church is perfect, nor denying the problems. But the overall picture I see is very different from what you see. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.)

I'm with you on this. (Hey can you give us a short form of your forum name? The full one is rather long!)

One of our Adventist scientists, Elaine Kennedy, has specialized in the study of dinosaurs. And there is definite evidence of dinosaurs after the flood. A couple dinosaurs (or more) on the ark would not be a problem. They hatched from eggs and thus started out quite small. They probably would have survived just fine for a year on hay. Genesis didn't specify that all the animals on the ark had to be at their maximum size.

You could call me Thomas.

Baby crocodiles live their first years on insects. Maybe that would be true for dinosaurs aswell?

I think Mike is referring to what Ellen White says in these passages:

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. {3SG 75.2}

There were a class of very large animals which perished at the flood. God knew that the strength of man would decrease, and these mammoth animals could not be controlled by feeble man. {4aSG 121.2}

It's interesting that the extinction of the dinosaurs is a mystery which has intrigued scientists ever since the first dinosaur fossils were discovered. There are many theories to explain their extinction.

Hi Thomas (much easier to spell!)



There's no good way to tell right now, is there?

As for the Ellen White quote mentioned by Rosangela, we can't really know what she meant either, can we? After all, she didn't say that no dinosaurs were on the ark.

That dinosaurs apparently survived the flood is hardly at question for anyone who believes in a world-wide flood as well as the evidence of fossilized tracks and whole dinosaur skeletons. (There's also evidence that great numbers of them perished through a catastrophic flood, which I believe to the theflood.)

Inga

Thomas, who "created" Dolly (the cloned sheep)?

Inga, the species of animals that did not enter the ark died, became extinct. God guided the animal families into the ark. Has extinction of these families occurred since the flood? I realize certain species have become extinct, but what about families?

Pardon my butting in here, but it seems to me you would have to define what you mean by "family" in order for your question to be answered.

If the dinosaurs were alive, and killed by the flood, and their fossils preserved, that would be evidence they were alive at the time of the flood, it seems to me. How are the fossilized tracks and whole dinosaur skeletons evidence that they survived the flood?

Dolly was a sheep. Sheep were created by God. At most you could argue that man copied that which God created. The day man creates some animal that is no longer within any of the known families, you will have a point. But Dolly is not it.

I guess it is always a possibility that God did not take two of every living creature aboard the ark. That not every kind of animal was represented. But then this following quote cannot at the same time be true.

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

So which is it? Is this text true or is it only approximately true or is it parable/fable?

Thomas, I believe, based on the fossil record and the SOP quotes Rosangela posted, that the antediluvians figured out a way to create new kinds of animals, the "confused species", through a process of amalgamation. Perhaps they tweaked the DNA gene pool? I dunno. They died in the Flood for the simple fact God did not guide them onto the Ark. He only led the original species into the Ark.

Tom, by "families" I mean the original kinds of animals God created, as opposed to the many different species that have evolved from them. For example, God originally created one pair of canines. He guided one pair of this original creation onto the Ark. Since the Flood, many different species have evolved from the original creation.

So, my question is - Has any extinction of the original species occurred since the Flood? We know the dinosaurs, the "confused species", did not survive the Flood, which means they were not part of the animals God created in the beginning, otherwise He would have guided them onto the Ark (the way the Bible describes it).

Also, given the size of the Ark and the length of time they were in it, it seems reasonable to say God did not create very many different species, otherwise there would not have been enough room for them and the food to feed them for a year. Another point, Adam named all the animals in less than a day, which means there weren't very many different species.

After reading MM's posts about confused species I have to wonder who is confused. It is amazing the ridiculous explanations we have to concoct to defend what cannot be defended.

MM, if by canines, you mean dogs, that's just one species, Canis lupus familiaris. Wolfs are also canines, so if only one pair of canines was taken on the ark, that would be a pair of wolves. Is that what you are saying?

If family means kinds from Genesis, then what you're really asking is if any original kind has gone extinct. It also seems you are using the word "species" in the same way. For example:



You're really talking about kinds here too, right?

It seems you're trying to make me say something I didn't say. I did notsay that "fossilized track and whole dinosaur skeletons are evidence that they survived the flood."

I said that for those of us who believe in both the flood and the evidence of science, it is apparent that dinosaurs survived the flood. It would depend on where these were found. But that statement is probably a little stronger than I should have made it.

I think it is likely that dinosaurs survived the flood, due to nesting sites apparently being formed on top of flood deposits. And some dinosaur tracks are in places where they could have been made after the flood. However, the evidence is not conclusive. Perhaps we'll never know until the hereafter.

Those who believe that dinosaurs may have survived the flood see that conditions after the flood became increasingly less favorable to their survival so that they eventually became extinct, the same as many other life forms.

MM, we do not know that the dinosaurs did not survive the flood!

I admit that we do not know that they did survive the flood.

Ellen White said something about "confused species," but you added your speculation about dinosaurs making it appear that Ellen said this!

That's the kind of misuse of SOP that Thomas objected to in another thread. (And with this evidence before me, I can better understand why he objected so strenuously. )

Yep, when the use of Ellen leads an SDA to leave the plain meaning of the biblical text, only the x-sda critics smile. Nothing is gained but much is lost.

Certainly not all dinosaurs perished at the flood:

"One group of dinosaurs is known to have survived to the present day: taxonomists believe modern birds are direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs." - Wiki

Let's take a look again at what Ellen White says:

There were a class of very large animals which perished at the flood. God knew that the strength of man would decrease, and these mammoth animals could not be controlled by feeble man. {4aSG 121.2}

The problem with that statement is that implies that man was so strong in Noah's day that he could control the dinosaurs. This is clearly false.

Darius,

When you make such 'carte blanche' statements, it would be nice if you would attach a little bit of meat to it, otherwise, they are only 'cliche' statements without any meat or foundation.

Daryl, to be fair, it is no different when Mike says that humans before the flood had figured out ways to add to Gods creation than Darius noting the absurdity of those same humans being strong enough to control dinosaurs. Both contain equally much "meat"...

I agree that any statements like this should be backed up with a reference by whoever makes these kind of statements.

Why can't we leave it at that? Why add to what Ellen said to attempt to make her say that all the dinosaurs perished in the flood?

We don't know precisely what she was shown and can only speculate. Adding our speculations to make it appear that that's what she meant most often serves to discredit her.

For that matter, there were dinosaurs of various sizes. Not all were at or near the size of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

We may also consider all the large animals that exists today which man are too feeble to control. There is no man alive who can control a grown alive crocodile. There is no man alive who can control a grown alive hippotamous. Yet both of these animals can be seen in the wild aswell as in some zoological gardens by anyone so inclined.

This passage throws additional lignt on "amalgamation":

"Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. . . . All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares." [Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288]

Do you seriously believe that? This is worse than the evolutionist suggest about the origins of life. All of a sudden these new plants just sprang up. Give me a break.

But you came at me because I am the one you disagree with. I don't have to provide any support for what is obvious and you should be aware of that. If the dinosaurs existed while man was alive and had to be killed because man was to lose strength it must have been because God had not problems with man controlling them.

Of course no man can control any ferocious animal without a weapon, but with weapons this is feasible.

"We know from Genesis, moreover, that pre-Flood man was no ignorant savage. With metal forging from the earliest times (Genesis 4:22), there would have been ample technological scope for man to comfortably exercise dominion over these raptors." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/dinosaurs.asp

However, it would become increasingly difficult for a physically and intellectually weaker race to control animals like those described here:

"The tallest and heaviest dinosaur known from good skeletons is Brachiosaurus brancai (also known as Giraffatitan). Its remains were discovered in Tanzania between 1907–12. Bones from multiple similarly-sized individuals were incorporated into the skeleton now mounted and on display at the Humboldt Museum of Berlin;[37] this mount is 12 meters (39 ft) tall and 22.5 meters (74 ft) long, and would have belonged to an animal that weighed between 30,000 and 60,000 kilograms (70,000 and 130,000 lb). The longest complete dinosaur is the 27 m (89 ft) long Diplodocus, which was discovered in Wyoming in the United States and displayed in Pittsburgh's Carnegie Natural History Museum in 1907." Wiki

Although I agree with Inga we can't affirm that all dinosaurs perished in the flood, I would again mention that the fact that a whole subclass, or superorder (I've not yet reached a conclusion ) was extinct deeply intrigues scientists.

Have you ever heard about genetic manipulation and genetic engeneering?

Darius' arrogance and disrespect is very apparent here, therefore, Darius' posting privileges have just been removed from this particular forum of MSDAOL, especially while the last few posts he made here are being reviewed by staff.

Puting thorns on a rose is different from creating the rose from scratch. Puting thorns on a rose also protects it against hungry cows, thus increasing its chances of survival. Are thus thorns the noxious results of devilish ingenuinity or the divine plan of a good creator?

I think that would depend on wether you just stuck your finger on a thorn while trying to fit them into your vase or wether you are looking at deer eating the roses in your garden...

If the purpose was that, daisies should have thorns too.

Anyway, Thomas, are thorns part of the creation or of the curse?

"And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field" (Gen. 3:17, 18).

In the paragraph about size in the wiki article, we read that: "A rough estimate for average dinosaur weight is about 100 kilograms (200 lb)." That is not very different from the average adult human weight.

What wiki article is that?

The curse does not say that plants which previously did not have thorns now would have such. The curse says that thorny plants and thistles would grow in wheat fields. Adam will farm the ground and wish for cereals and vegetables but "all" he will see is the thorns and thistles. If we see this to mean that God created thorns and thistles to plauge Adam, I think we are reading more into the text than is there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs#Size

From what I read there in that link, it seems that there are two definitions of what is a dinosaur:

Did you notice the date of the original definition? The date of the original definition of dinosaur was 1842, therefore, it would make sense to me that EGW in her writings had this definition in mind.

We would first have to establish that Ellen was talking about dinosaurs at all. The word "dinosaur" produces no hits at all in the ellenwhite search library.

Right, and Ellen White mentions specifically that a class of very large animals perished at the flood, so we can't affirm that the smaller ones also died in the flood. However, as I said, the extinction of all the suborders, and infraorders, and families, and species of dinosaurs is very intriguing. There is no other instance of such occurrence in the whole animal kingdom.

I've never heard of thorny plants and thistles growing in wheat fields, just of tares. Besides, Ellen White is clear that it was not God who created thorns and thistles.

Not so sure that you are correct there Rosangela. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_extinction#Mass_extinctions
Dinosaurs simply seem to be the most known example of a whole order of animals disapearing. If indeed it did disapear entierly. As was quoted earlier, birds are thought to be a branch of dinosaurs, and what about crocodiles?

Go ask a local farmer what he is trying to kill with the plant poisons he sprays his fields with every year.

If God did not create a whole family of plants that anyone can see does exist, then it is no longer true that "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Rosangela wasn't saying that God didn't create the plants, but that He didn't create the thorns and thistles. Actually Rosangela said this is what Ellen White wrote.

Here's EGW's statement again:



It seems to me that Rosangela's explanation is a fair reading of the above.

The text says that many species became extinct, not, as I said, all the suborders, and infraorders, and families, and species of a superorder.
That idea of taxonomists of classifying a sparrow as a dinosaur is hilarious. I think it's more reasonable to say that the class of archosaurs includes the subclasses crocodilians, pterosaurs, thecodonts, dinosaurs and birds.

I had edited the post (about thorns and thistles) to clarify what I meant. I was going to reply to post #95545, but I see Tom has already done that for me. Thanks, Tom.

Thistle is the common name of a polyphyletic group of flowering plants characterised by leaves with sharp spines or prickles on the margins, mostly in the plant family Asteraceae. Their prickles often occur all over the plant, including on the stem and flat parts of the leaf. These are an adaptation to protect the plant against herbivorous animals, discouraging them from feeding on the plant.
-wiki

Thistles are plants. The plain reading of what Rosangela wrote was that God did not create thorny plants and thistles. This is clearly unscriptural as I showed above. If Ellen with the above statement meant that God did not create thistles, then Ellen was wrong.

Thomas,

I'm sure you understood the point. Satan cannot create anything, but he can modify things for worse, and this is what he has been doing since the entrance of sin. Everything that God created was good, and the fact that God overrules evil and sometimes makes what is evil to be useful doesn't mean He created what is evil. Do you think that God created (as they are today) pathogenic bacteria and viruses? Did He create the venomous serpents? Did He create ticks?

1. Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. Not one was left behind.

2. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Not one was saved.

3. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.

3SG 64
But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. {3SG 64.1}

3SG 75
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}

Mike,
My advice to you is that you spend a little less time with Ellen and a little more time with the bible. It seems to me that you have some priority issues between the two that would need to be resolved.

Much which we call evil is simply something which are good in its right place but cause suffering when in the wrong place. Thistles and roses are beautiful flowers to look at as long as you do not have to walk through them or they do not grow where you intended for something else to grow. Bacteria such as E. Coli participate in the work of intestines and you are healthier with them there than you would be without them. Occationally they gain virulent capabilities and then they cause you to be sick. But the non-virulent bacteria are still your allies to a good health. I am somewhat uncertain about what good viruses do, but considering that it is only a tiny minority which is known to cause sickness in humans and domestic animals, surely the great majority must be busy going about their Creators buisness. To what good God created ticks, I do not have the slightest idea. But considering that the creation of life is the exclusive domain of God, He must have had some purpose in mind.

Thomas,

I'm not saying God did not create those things. I'm saying that God created everything good, but that Satan and sin caused many changes for worse. It's a fact that mutations occur, and it's also a fact that many times mutations are harmful. Thus, it's easy to explain how some bacteria and viruses became pathogenic, and how bad changes in many plants and animals occurred. Many Christians see things in this way.
Besides, today we can see how easily hybrids may be created that God did not create.
Of course you have the right to disagree, however I don't see why you are finding fault with well-established scientific facts.

Usually one would say that a harmful mutation is such that it is negative to the entity that got it. A mutation that makes a bacteria pathogenic would not be viewed as a harmful mutation. That it makes the bacteria harmful for humans is a different thing. Interesting article. It will be interesting to find out if the researcher with the human brains in mouse bodies will succeed.

But considering the statements previously that I am "finding fault" with, that between creation and sometime in the late 19th century humans and animals underwent amalgamation and this can be seen in certain races of men, or that God did not create dinosaurs but that they were genetic experiments. None of these statements are "well-established scientific facts". That researchers today are finding ways to genetically modify animals to include human parts is an entierly different thing from saying that the anicents did the same, from any well-established scientific point of view. Also, mixing humans and mice is a different thing from creating a mouse from scratch. Maybe science will learn to do that aswell some day, but presently it is still not so as far as I know. Also, the race of humans which the anicents amalgamated with some unmentioned animals, which race would that be? Europeans? Asians? Brasilians perhaps?

It is indeed negative for the bacteria and virus themselves, because if they cause the death of the organism they invade, they are virtually causing their own death.


First, Ellen White is speaking of amalgamation of men and of animals, not of men with animals.
I'll transcribe from the White Estate, since there is no link:

Amalgamation of man and beast
Some have charged that Ellen White wrote in 1864 (and republished in 1870) that humans once cohabited with animals and that their offspring produced certain races that exist today. The statement reads: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him." [1]

No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. The primary use of the word describes the fusion of metals, the union of different elements such as in making tooth cements. Nineteenth-century usage included the mixing of diverse races.

Granted, her statement could appear ambiguous: Does she mean "amalgamation of man with beast" or "amalgamation of man and of beast"? Often, repetition of the preposition is omitted in similar construction. [2]

On other occasions, when Mrs. White used the word "amalgamation," she used it metaphorically, comparing faithful believers and worldlings. [3] She also used it to describe the origin of poisonous plants and other irregularities in the biological world: "Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge which meant disobedience to God. Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. . . . All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares." [4]

Recognizing that Satan has been an active agent in the corrupting of God's plan for man, beast, plants, etc., we can better understand what Ellen White may have meant when she described the results of amalgamation. That which "defaced the image of God" in man and that which "confused the species [of animals]" has been the handiwork of Satan with the cooperation of humans. Such "amalgamation of man and [of] beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men," becomes understandable.

Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. She did speak of "species of animals" and "races of men" but not any kind of amalgam of animals with human beings.

We recognize, however, that serious students of Ellen White's writings differ on what she meant by "amalgamation." "The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term." [5]

[1] Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64. "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (page 75).

[2] "We might speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the two groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the scattering of man and of beast" (Francis D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308).

[3] "Those who profess to be followers of Christ, should be living agencies, cooperating with heavenly intelligences; but by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim" (Review and Herald, Aug. 23, 1892; see also The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 144 and The Upward Look, p. 318).

[4] Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288.

[5] Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308.

Who said any animal would have been created from scratch? Satan and humans can only make changes through genetic manipulation and engeneering. They can't create from scratch.

By the way, when Ellen White speaks of the evidence of amalgation in certain races of men, she may be referring to certain physical traits besides the spiritual aspect - perhaps a combination of both. Of course through amalgamation certain physical traits are reinforced or modified. This article and many others use the term "amalgamation" and comment about the effect of this regarding physical traits.

Thomas, earlier on this thread I posted Bible quotes. Like you, I am also quoting other sources. I am simply saying God guided the species of animals that He created onto the ark, that He did not guide the ones He didn't "create", and that the species He didn't "create" perished in the flood resulting in their extinction. I guess it doesn't matter if we call the original species God created "dinosaurs", so long as we agree He created them.

Do you disagree with these observations?

Not if the bacteria would be killed by the host immune defence without the mutation. Then the bacteria wins in the long run if even one other host is infected before the current host dies. Uhm, ok, but then I do not understand why you felt it appropriate to use the national geographic article as an example, considering that its topic is very specifically mixing human and animal cells. Like the groups known as mullato and latino in america?Does this suggest that Ellen meant by amalgamation the same as Augustine meant by original sin? In such case this is only confusing to anyone today. Considering that it has now been stated that the word amalgamation has native meaning in the diciplines of metalurgu and the race science that peaked in the Nazi furnances, which meaning do we want to attribute to Ellen?

In such case God created dinosaurs which satan or humans tweaked later. But then it makes no difference for the purposes of this thread, where several members have tried to show that no dinosaurs are alive today because they were not on the ark because God did not create them. But with the admision that humans and others can only made changes to such animals which God has created, and since it is an undisputed fact that dinosaurs did exist, therefore God must have created them, even though some of the subspecies might have been tweaked by other entities.

Let's assume for the moment that animals and plants are such as we know them now, that God created plants with thorns, and carnivores for example. Let's consider the carnivores specifically. If God created animals to live by killing other animals and eating them, even before Adam and Eve sinned, then death is a part of creation, and not something dependent upon sin.

I am wondering if they are using the word here with the meaning of "fused together"?

With the marked modifications above, I would be ok with it.

But without the mutation the bacteria would not have been pathogenic in the first place (this was my presupposition), therefore it wouldn't have been killed by the host's immune system.


I would point out that the word was not used in this sense only in the nineteenth century. It's used in this sense through this day, as we can see in this article, for instance, which includes a definition of the term:
amalgamation - process of ethnically or genetically diverse populations uniting through marriage, resulting in a "mixed" population.


One nuance of the word would be the mixing, through marriage, of God’s followers with those who do not follow God.


We have two quotes – one which says that genetically manipulated animals perished in the flood and one which says that a very large class of animals perished in the flood. Maybe some of the latter hadn’t been genetically manipulated, however God saw that, with the weakening of the race, they would represent a problem for future generations.

By way of clarification, do you mean "a very large class of animals" or "a class of very large animals"?

You are right, Tom. "A class of very large animals."

Thomas, then we agree. None of the original species of animals that God created perished or became extinct in the flood. Or, did I misunderstand you?

Yes, if you by that agree that all species of animals were represented on the ark. I overlined your sentence saying "He did not guide the ones He didn't "create"" because I think it is building on a false premise. There is not such a thing as a species of animal that God did not create, nor was there ever such a thing. A species of animal that was not created by God is comparable to the sphinx of Egypt or the burning phoenix of Phonecia.

Thomas, you disagree with the following statement, then, right?



You disagree with it because you don't think there is any such thing as "confused species" or species that "were the result of amalgamation," correct?

Come on Tom, read the thread. We do not have the slightest idea what Ellen meant by "amalgamation". We simply cannot build theology on a paragraph where we do not understand what the key word means. And more than that, build theology which negates clear teaching in the bible, the gospels non the less.

I'm just trying to understand your position, Thomas. I'm not accusing you of anything.

If you leave off the part about "amalgamation," the statement says that there were "confused species" which God did not create, which were destroyed by the flood. So there were two types of species, those which God created, and those which He didn't, which are called "confused."

I understood your position to be that there were no species which were not on the ark. IOW, there is no such thing as a confused specie.

Have I misunderstood you?

That is what I said, yes.

Ok, thanks.

Your statement actually provides good reason to believe that she did notspecifically have dinosaurs in mind. If that's what she meant, and the word was in usage, I would expect her to use the correct word.

I have no ax to grind one way or another. I so have a problem with expanding on the biblical or SOP text and then concluding that this expansion is what was meant in the original. It smacks too much of "adding" to the word of God, which is expressly forbidden in Scripture.