Noah's Ark: The Flawed Literalist Interpretation

[Volnotova]

But the flood was brought on by God, so He conjured up all the conditions necessary for it to happen, no? People might believe it literally happened, but they believe it literally happened within the context of there existing an omnipotent deity that can just do whatever He wants.

Trying to debunk it this way is rather futile, I'd think.

You mean the "conditions" of fitting 17.4 million animals in a 135 metre ark? Statistically impossible, and illogical considering the story. Why did God specify the dimensions of an ark that was far too small?

Obviously Noah's ark bend space and time and was powered by a yet unknown propulsion method(Writer's simply lacked the words to describe it at the time), also instead of physically containing every animal on the planet they/he merely collected tissue samples.

Once the flood was over he would "grow" animals from these tissues.

Now as for the water and the plant life... well... that is tricky...

*nods*

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You mean the "conditions" of fitting 17.4 million animals in a 135 metre ark? Statistically impossible, and illogical considering the story. Why did God specify the dimensions of an ark that was far too small?

In 600AD, There were not that many species known. Remember the bible was written fourteen hundred years ago.

Uh, it wasn't. Even the New Testament wasn't written that late.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You mean the "conditions" of fitting 17.4 million animals in a 135 metre ark? Statistically impossible, and illogical considering the story. Why did God specify the dimensions of an ark that was far too small?

Obviously Noah's ark bend space and time and was powered by a yet unknown propulsion method(Writer's simply lacked the words to describe it at the time), also instead of physically containing every animal on the planet they/he merely collected tissue samples.

Once the flood was over he would "grow" animals from these tissues.

Now as for the water and the plant life... well... that is tricky...

*nods*

Perhaps we've accidentally proved the existence of the Forerunners from the Haloverse, and their hand in shaping planetary development after defeating The Flood?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

In 600AD, There were not that many species known. Remember the bible was written fourteen hundred years ago.

Uh, it wasn't. Even the New Testament wasn't written that late.

Well there you go then, it's from an era with even fewer species known.
Which also puts it in the same era where people thought that giraffes were the offspring of leopards and camels. And the same for other "strange" creatures in the animal kingdom.

[Gallup]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

But the flood was brought on by God, so He conjured up all the conditions necessary for it to happen, no? People might believe it literally happened, but they believe it literally happened within the context of there existing an omnipotent deity that can just do whatever He wants.

Trying to debunk it this way is rather futile, I'd think.

You mean the "conditions" of fitting 17.4 million animals in a 135 metre ark? Statistically impossible, and illogical considering the story. Why did God specify the dimensions of an ark that was far too small?

The Bible conveniently neglects to define what a "living thing" is. You've interpreted it to mean all the individual species on the planet. Could mean a sample of genetically distinct creatures. Or the ark could be like a magical fucking Tardis. It's a Biblical story and it happened because God set it up to happen. That's the flaw of arguing against it this way. You're assuming that it couldn't happen because it's not logistically feasible, but keep in mind that God consistently shits on logistics throughout the Biblical narrative, and it happening is predicated on God existing.

That's just the way of it.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Uh, it wasn't. Even the New Testament wasn't written that late.

Well there you go then, it's from an era with even fewer species known.
Which also puts it in the same era where people thought that giraffes were the offspring of leopards and camels. And the same for other "strange" creatures in the animal kingdom.

That's part of my point. You can't collect species you don't know exist.

It's simply more evidence that the Bible was written by a fallible author and not inspired by God.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

Clearly 61% of Americans disagree.

[Volnotova]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

That argument again?

"The Bible is the word of god and The Truth™! However, parts that would be too logically inconsistent or "embarassing" to be true are simply to be interpreted "methaphorically"."

Haha.

No.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You mean the "conditions" of fitting 17.4 million animals in a 135 metre ark? Statistically impossible, and illogical considering the story. Why did God specify the dimensions of an ark that was far too small?

The Bible conveniently neglects to define what a "living thing" is. You've interpreted it to mean all the individual species on the planet. Could mean a sample of genetically distinct creatures. Or the ark could be like a magical fucking Tardis. It's a Biblical story and it happened because God set it up to happen. That's the flaw of arguing against it this way. You're assuming that it couldn't happen because it's not logistically feasible, but keep in mind that God consistently shits on logistics throughout the Biblical narrative.

That's just the way of it.

"Omnipotence" is an illogical concept in of itself, and whoever uses the "God is perfect, all-powerful" argument clearly can't understand rational thinking.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

That argument again?

"The Bible is the word of god and The Truth™! However, parts that would be too logically inconsistent or "embarassing" to be true are simply to be interpreted "methaphorically"."

Haha.

No.

Indeed. What was it even a metaphor for?

[Tsuntion]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

For being a metaphor, they wrote it in an awfully literal manner. In both testaments, Noah is presented as a real person (see: Luke 3:35). Dimensions and instructions for the Ark are precise, despite being unrealistic when you take into account our current knowledge. The whole section about the Ark is described in the first sentence as an account -- a real account, not a story.

Methinks it was written as literal, and people just slap "metaphor" on anything in the Bible which is obviously false.

The Bible nowadays is said to have a lot more metaphors than in the past.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Well there you go then, it's from an era with even fewer species known.
Which also puts it in the same era where people thought that giraffes were the offspring of leopards and camels. And the same for other "strange" creatures in the animal kingdom.

That's part of my point. You can't collect species you don't know exist.

It's simply more evidence that the Bible was written by a fallible author and not inspired by God.

In the logic of the day, you could save half the "exotic" species of the world by saving a male of one species and a female of another.
The whole thing is so "logically flawed" and as mentioned, predicates the existence of a God, that trying top deconstruct it is pointless.

[Benuty]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

For being a metaphor, they wrote it in an awfully literal manner. In both testaments, Noah is presented as a real person (see: Luke 3:35). Dimensions and instructions for the Ark are precise, despite being unrealistic when you take into account our current knowledge. The whole section about the Ark is described in the first sentence as an account -- a real account, not a story.

Methinks it was written as literal, and people just slap "metaphor" on anything in the Bible which is obviously false.

The Bible nowadays is said to have a lot more metaphors than in the past.

Well what do you expect of the monks and nuns during the medieval ages to do?

actually think outside the box for once on biblical issues?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

Clearly 61% of Americans disagree.

Key word - Americans.
On religion.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

The Bible conveniently neglects to define what a "living thing" is. You've interpreted it to mean all the individual species on the planet. Could mean a sample of genetically distinct creatures. Or the ark could be like a magical fucking Tardis. It's a Biblical story and it happened because God set it up to happen. That's the flaw of arguing against it this way. You're assuming that it couldn't happen because it's not logistically feasible, but keep in mind that God consistently shits on logistics throughout the Biblical narrative.

That's just the way of it.

"Omnipotence" is an illogical concept in of itself, and whoever uses the "God is perfect, all-powerful" argument clearly can't understand rational thinking.

And that's your target audience.

[Mike the Progressive]

Symbolism of Noahs Ark is mere symbolism what is so hard to get?

Why don't you ask the 61% of Americans who take it literally?

I also doubt the accuracy of the poll, tbh.

In any case, long OP is long. Therefore, it is wrong.

[Benuty]

Why don't you ask the 61% of Americans who take it literally?

I also doubt the accuracy of the poll, tbh.

In any case, long OP is long. Therefore, it is wrong.

We need statistics from 2013, which might provide valuable info. However what would the Nixonites do?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Clearly 61% of Americans disagree.

Key word - Americans.
On religion.

I'd put it down to being uninformed rather than due to blind faith. It's not hard to accept the story of Noah's Ark if you haven't bothered to understand the logic (or lack thereof) of it.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

"Omnipotence" is an illogical concept in of itself, and whoever uses the "God is perfect, all-powerful" argument clearly can't understand rational thinking.

And that's your target audience.

Stop destroying my faith in humanity.

[Mike the Progressive]

I also doubt the accuracy of the poll, tbh.

In any case, long OP is long. Therefore, it is wrong.

We need statistics from 2013, which might provide valuable info. However what would the Nixonites do?

Not only that, but it's one poll. When we have presidential elections we use dozens, each with their own methods, to gauge how the nation is feeling about a certain candidate compared to another. Why do we seriously think one or two polls from a decade ago on something like this will suffice?

[Ashmoria]

rats
now that I have looked at the OP I realize I chose the wrong option in the poll.

tl;dr;dnntr

[Benuty]

And that's your target audience.

Stop destroying my faith in humanity.

Pessimissm Fuck Yeah!.

[Benuty]

rats
now that I have looked at the OP I realize I chose the wrong option in the poll.

tl;dr;dnntr

dnntr?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Key word - Americans.
On religion.

I'd put it down to being uninformed rather than due to blind faith. It's not hard to accept the story of Noah's Ark if you haven't bothered to understand the logic (or lack thereof) of it.

In the logic of the day, you could save half the "exotic" species of the world by saving a male of one unrelated species and a female of a third.
The whole thing is so "logically flawed" and as mentioned, predicates the existence of a God, that trying to deconstruct it in this way is pointless.