Regarding 'Creation Stories'

[Subduction Zone]

I failed?!
Answered everything. But thanks, I learned a lot from this - had to really think
more deeply about the issues. Most respondents drop off earlier than you did.
Thanks.

Your so called answers all failed as well.

So moving on. How do you feel about the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[PruePhillip]

Your so called answers all failed as well.

So moving on. How do you feel about the Noah's Ark myth?

I think it was a local event. Big, but local.
Hate it when people say the bible copied it from The Epic of Gilgamesh
or whatever - back then the bible was centered in Sumer.
The "universe" meant "everything there is" when I was growing up, now
it means just one bubble of space time. Imagine how the term "world"
has mutated, ie in the Gospels "the whole world was taxed."
The Sumerian world was quite tiny.
And "planet" meant "wandering star."

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You didn't answer the question.
But Genesis gives us a Starting Point, ie THE EARTH, LIKE THE HEAVENS, IS ALREADY FORMED
in Verse 1.
In V2 it reads, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep..."
Dunno, what does that really mean? Here's a Guess - formless means there was no real landscape.
Empty means nothing there - no land, no mountains, no life - the "deep" could refer to an ocean 3-5km
deep. And darkness ---- remember, the "heavens" have already been formed - they are out there,
somewhere, but you can't see them. VENUS IS SUSPECTED OF BEING LIKE THIS TOO - OCEANS
AND CLOUDS. SO IT WAS DARK THERE TOO, ONLY MUCH HOTTER.

SZ, I am happy with this. It's accurate for a stage in earth's history. The "formed" earth could encompass
the gas cloud, meteror/dust conglomeration, lava stuff. But WHEN it was "formed" this is what it looked
like. Dark, sterile ocean world.

It is held by some that the condition of the earth in (Gen. 1:2) , formless and void and covered in water, is the result of another previous judgement from God. In other words, (Gen. 1:1) is original creation. Then a judgement due to a catastrophic event, most likely the rebellion of satan. Then the six days are the days of re-creation.

Many oppose this view, but it has merit and can be supported in the Scripture.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it was a local event. Big, but local.
Hate it when people say the bible copied it from The Epic of Gilgamesh
or whatever - back then the bible was centered in Sumer.
The "universe" meant "everything there is" when I was growing up, now
it means just one bubble of space time. Imagine how the term "world"
has mutated, ie in the Gospels "the whole world was taxed."
The Sumerian world was quite tiny.
And "planet" meant "wandering star."

So then why the need for an Ark? A local event would mean that it did not kill all life or come even close and that includes man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is held by some that the condition of the earth in (Gen. 1:2) , formless and void and covered in water, is the result of another previous judgement from God. In other words, (Gen. 1:1) is original creation. Then a judgement due to a catastrophic event, most likely the rebellion of satan. Then the six days are the days of re-creation.

Many oppose this view, but it has merit and can be supported in the Scripture.

Good-Ole-Rebel

But not by reliable evidence.

 

[Goodman John]

So then why the need for an Ark? A local event would mean that it did not kill all life or come even close and that includes man.

I saw an episode of 'Ancient Aliens' (yes, I know, but bear with me) in which it was argued that the Ark was not really a boat at all, but a DNA repository. The AA's knew there was going to be a cataclysmic world event (or were preparing it for the world) and sent teams out to collect DNA from all the creatures of the world. Hence we have the small intrepid band of Noah's family- the DNA team- and 'two of each animal'. I'm fairly certain we've proved that- Ken Ham notwithstanding- the Ark as a handmade wooden boat carrying thousands of animals for months is pretty unreasonable at best. BUT if the 'Ark' were some sort of storage facility (even a floating one, perhaps) a vessel the size of the Biblical Ark could literally hold millions, of not billions of DNA samples. When the Trouble was over, open the Ark, and start the Biblical version of 'Jurassic Park' in reconstituting all the species. It's obviously a far-fetched idea, but if one subscribes to the Ancient Alien theory then it can make perfect sense.

The question I have about Noah's Ark is that if the story was not literally as recounted in the Bible, then just what were the ancient writers trying to describe?

 

[Sand Dancer]

People can say or believe whatever they want because they do this often enough, just picking and choosing what they want to. But as far as the NT goes, Jesus and various accounts by Luke, Peter and maybe others in the NT acknowledge those creation stories as factual events.

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 2 Peter 3:5-6

They didn't take them as fact. They knew no one was around for it. Credit them with some sense.

 

[Native]

I saw an episode of 'Ancient Aliens' (yes, I know, but bear with me) in which it was argued that the Ark was not really a boat at all, but a DNA repository. The AA's knew there was going to be a cataclysmic world event (or were preparing it for the world) and sent teams out to collect DNA from all the creatures of the world. Hence we have the small intrepid band of Noah's family- the DNA team- and 'two of each animal'. I'm fairly certain we've proved that- Ken Ham notwithstanding- the Ark as a handmade wooden boat carrying thousands of animals for months is pretty unreasonable at best. BUT if the 'Ark' were some sort of storage facility (even a floating one, perhaps) a vessel the size of the Biblical Ark could literally hold millions, of not billions of DNA samples. When the Trouble was over, open the Ark, and start the Biblical version of 'Jurassic Park' in reconstituting all the species. It's obviously a far-fetched idea, but if one subscribes to the Ancient Alien theory then it can make perfect sense.

The question I have about Noah's Ark is that if the story was not literally as recounted in the Bible, then just what were the ancient writers trying to describe?

Regarding "Ancient Aliens" I bear with you These fellows show no insight in ancient myths and they take all informations literally to count for ancient visitors and technical matter which in fact is invented long after the religious/mythical stories.
IMO the Flood and Noah´s Ark are astronomical descriptions. The Flood describes the contours of the Milky Way and the Ark describes the celestial images, including the animals in the Zodiac.
The Milky Way River/Flood is misinterpreted by scholars to run ON and over the entire Earth but of course it runs OVER the Earth in the Sky. Mythical/religious ships is mentioned in several cultures and IMO these ships resembles the crescent shape of the Milky Way as observed in both hemispheres.

 

[sealchan]

I saw an episode of 'Ancient Aliens' (yes, I know, but bear with me) in which it was argued that the Ark was not really a boat at all, but a DNA repository. The AA's knew there was going to be a cataclysmic world event (or were preparing it for the world) and sent teams out to collect DNA from all the creatures of the world. Hence we have the small intrepid band of Noah's family- the DNA team- and 'two of each animal'. I'm fairly certain we've proved that- Ken Ham notwithstanding- the Ark as a handmade wooden boat carrying thousands of animals for months is pretty unreasonable at best. BUT if the 'Ark' were some sort of storage facility (even a floating one, perhaps) a vessel the size of the Biblical Ark could literally hold millions, of not billions of DNA samples. When the Trouble was over, open the Ark, and start the Biblical version of 'Jurassic Park' in reconstituting all the species. It's obviously a far-fetched idea, but if one subscribes to the Ancient Alien theory then it can make perfect sense.

The question I have about Noah's Ark is that if the story was not literally as recounted in the Bible, then just what were the ancient writers trying to describe?

In my study of dreams God dreams and alien dreams are somewhat closely related. Your idea is interesting. One could also wrap in there that little mention of the sons of God having children with the daughters of humans.

I dont think this literally happened but enough people could have had visions just as today people have alien encounters that such "anomalous experiences" could have been immortalized in story.