Noah's Ark in Kentucky

[gregintenn]

Anybody been there? Is it worth seeing or a ripoff? My wife has mentioned wanting to see it. It looks like Dolly Parton owns it from the ticket prices!

[MacGyver]

They’re young earthers, but if you can get past that, it’s pretty cool and worth seeing.  

My kids went there last summer and really enjoyed it. 

[A.J. Holst]

My wife went, really enjoyed it.

She liked the plausible explanations on how you might actually manage a lot of critters on a boat.

In my opinion, the Earth ain't quite as young or old as folks suspect.

[Steelharp]

I'd rather see the one on Mt. Ararat... but KY's closer.

[gregintenn]

3 hours ago, Steelharp said:

I'd rather see the one on Mt. Ararat... but KY's closer.

That one might still be cheaper.

[Trekbike]

On 4/14/2019 at 6:50 PM, MacGyver said:

They’re young earthers, but if you can get past that, 

 

Just curious, your comment led me to think you don't subscribe to the "Young Earth" theory, correct?    

 

[Omega]

Does anyone here subscribe to that theory, the 6000 year old earth?

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

Does anyone here subscribe to that theory, the 6000 year old earth?

I could make a reasonable argument for both sides, but at the end of the day God doesn't give a crap what I think.  

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, Trekbike said:

Just curious, your comment led me to think you don't subscribe to the "Young Earth" theory, correct?    

 

I don’t. 

I am in practice what most would consider a conservative Christian. But, I also work to sync my faith with what’s been revealed to us through science - or art for that matter.  

My faith is not challenged if the narrative of Genesis has more to say about the relationship between God and his created people rather than it does specifically, literally about “how” the earth was created.  

I do very much believe in a creator God. 

My kids were taught the creation story on the flannel graph just like I was.  But, as a church - we don’t want our kids to grow up feeling like they need to turn part of their brain off when they go to church - so we try to struggle with these things in a way that’s open and genuine.

As scientists, the more we learn, the more we find we don’t know. I’m certain future peoples will look at us with the same wonder that we look at the understanding of other ancient cultures.

I think our modern, post-enlightenment minds make a mistake when we try to take the Bible and turn it into a scientific text. That’s not how the intended audience would have read it - and so we should be careful there, too.

I do believe it has an enormous amount to tell us about our relationship as a community with a creator God. In that way, the stories in the first part of Genesis represent a far different story than the creation narratives of other near-Eastern cultures of the time.

For that matter, and back to this topic, I’m even okay if the flood narrative is mostly apocryphal.  It doesn’t disrupt my faith.

But, at the same time, I can go to see a full-scale model in Kentucky and think it’s pretty cool.

[gregintenn]

I've resigned to the theory that the folks in biblical times had a different concept of time, or at least a different way of measuring it than what we have today.

 

I still can't wrap my head around folks living for several hundred years then, yet I've watched the average life expectancy go up my entire life.

I'm pretty simple minded.

[E4 No More]

8 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I've resigned to the theory that the folks in biblical times had a different concept of time, or at least a different way of measuring it than what we have today.

 

I still can't wrap my head around folks living for several hundred years then, yet I've watched the average life expectancy go up my entire life.

I'm pretty simple minded.

If we kept producing HGH like we did in our 20's we'd live a lot longer than we do.

[ironsniper1]

i have been twice already still want to go back and see the zoo and museum, its well worth it!

[TripleGGG]

Well worth it. 

[GlockSpock]

On 4/14/2019 at 7:50 PM, MacGyver said:

They’re young earthers, but if you can get past that, it’s pretty cool and worth seeing.  

My kids went there last summer and really enjoyed it. 

Young earth is so 1990's. It's flat earth or get out.

[GlockSpock]

In other words...

[peejman]

I'm a Christian and an engineer. I believe what's in Genesis even if it doesn't quite seem to jive with current scientific theory of world history.   I have a few simple ideas as to how to resolve that, but I'm quite sure I won't get the final answer here on earth.

I also understand that what we actually know about geologic history is like a drop of water in the ocean.  It's fairly routine for new discoveries to flip existing geologic history theory on its head. This is one of the first questions I intend to ask. I expect the explanation may take a while, but I figure I'll have the time.    

Edited April 18, 2019 by peejman

[Bnashville]

I am hardly a biblical scholar, but I don’t quite grasp the concept of selective belief in the Bible. The Bible speaks against adding or taking away from the text. From my (perhaps simplistic) perspective either you believe in the Bible or you don’t. If you selectively believe in certain portions you believe in something other than the Bible. Of course each one of us has that choice to make and I am fine with it (wouldn’t matter if I wasn’t) as we’ll all be held accountable for our beliefs. Of course I recognize many may differ in their opinion as to the consequences of those beliefs. 

In any event, I agree with greggintenn in that the Biblical era may well have had a different concept of time. I also wonder about the veracity of carbon dating. Circling back to the Bible (for you believers), how old was Adam at the time of his creation? Clearly not an infant. I see no reason why the earth could not have been created at a mature age or some age other than that of “an infant.”  As peejman said, we’ll have the time to figure it out...

For all you gamblers and non-believers out there look up Pascal’s wager. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Bnashville

[E4 No More]

9 minutes ago, Bnashville said:

I am hardly a biblical scholar, but I don’t quite grasp the concept of selective belief in the Bible. The Bible speaks against adding or taking away from the text. From my (perhaps simplistic) perspective either you believe in the Bible or you don’t. If you selectively believe in certain portions you believe in something other than the Bible. Of course each one of us has that choice to make and I am fine with it (wouldn’t matter if I wasn’t) as we’ll all be held accountable for our beliefs. Of course I recognize many may differ in their opinion as to the consequences of those beliefs. 

In any event, I agree with greggintenn in that the Biblical era may well have had a different concept of time. I also wonder about the veracity of carbon dating. Circling back to the Bible (for you believers), how old was Adam at the time of his creation? Clearly not an infant. I see no reason why the earth could not have been created at a mature age or some age other than that of “an infant.”  As peejman said, we’ll have the time to figure it out...

For all you gamblers and non-believers out there look up Pascal’s wager. 

This goes to the idea of God creating the earth in a manner that we can interpret on our own. If we don't take his word for it then we are responsible for our incorrect interpretation.

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

[gregintenn]

38 minutes ago, Bnashville said:

I am hardly a biblical scholar, but I don’t quite grasp the concept of selective belief in the Bible. The Bible speaks against adding or taking away from the text. From my (perhaps simplistic) perspective either you believe in the Bible or you don’t. If you selectively believe in certain portions you believe in something other than the Bible. Of course each one of us has that choice to make and I am fine with it (wouldn’t matter if I wasn’t) as we’ll all be held accountable for our beliefs. Of course I recognize many may differ in their opinion as to the consequences of those beliefs. 

In any event, I agree with greggintenn in that the Biblical era may well have had a different concept of time. I also wonder about the veracity of carbon dating. Circling back to the Bible (for you believers), how old was Adam at the time of his creation? Clearly not an infant. I see no reason why the earth could not have been created at a mature age or some age other than that of “an infant.”  As peejman said, we’ll have the time to figure it out...

For all you gamblers and non-believers out there look up Pascal’s wager. 

Your thinking is way deeper than mine. I'm still trying to figure out whether Adam had a belly button.

[Dirtshooter]

Greg I will have to ask my SIL who is a Baptist preacher with a doctorate in theology and get back to you whenever I get an answer. My Daughter and family went last year and really liked it.

[Dirtshooter]

Ok Greg, my daughter who is a bible scholar said yes because we were all made in His image, but medically not needed because Adam was made from dust. We are awaiting the Dr's answer.

[gregintenn]

Surely you didn't call and ask your daughter this!

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

Your thinking is way deeper than mine. I'm still trying to figure out whether Adam had a belly button.

Patricia Heaton doesn't have a belly button. Maybe she's Adam reincarnated?

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, Bnashville said:

I am hardly a biblical scholar, but I don’t quite grasp the concept of selective belief in the Bible. The Bible speaks against adding or taking away from the text. From my (perhaps simplistic) perspective either you believe in the Bible or you don’t. If you selectively believe in certain portions you believe in something other than the Bible. Of course each one of us has that choice to make and I am fine with it (wouldn’t matter if I wasn’t) as we’ll all be held accountable for our beliefs. Of course I recognize many may differ in their opinion as to the consequences of those beliefs. 

In any event, I agree with greggintenn in that the Biblical era may well have had a different concept of time. I also wonder about the veracity of carbon dating. Circling back to the Bible (for you believers), how old was Adam at the time of his creation? Clearly not an infant. I see no reason why the earth could not have been created at a mature age or some age other than that of “an infant.”  As peejman said, we’ll have the time to figure it out...

For all you gamblers and non-believers out there look up Pascal’s wager. 

I very much believe the whole thing. I am just willing to look at it as the story of God's people - and not necessarily have to have it be a scientific text.

I might even go further to say that I'm willing to believe in divine revelation even when human authors, translators, preachers, and readers are imperfect.

For example - take the King James Bible that is generally revered by the most conservative traditions.  Those traditions that still regularly use it do so because they believe that it is the "purest" English translation. Modern vernacular arguments aside - did you know that the original 1611 version of the King James included several books of the Apocrypha? In fact every version up until 1666 did - and they were included in most versions up through 1885. They were already debated at the time.  Jerome labels them as such in the 4th century - even though they were in the Jewish Septuagint. Really he keeps them because St. Augustin talks him into it.  Post-reformation, they're really removed (despite a big war being fought) because the protestants would really like to appear less Catholic. There's a lot more here - and it's an interesting bit of history I recommend - but there are some pieces not in most Bibles today because one tradition wanted to look less like another tradition.

What do we do with that?

All of our translations are problematic.  The best translators are upfront about the decisions they make and why they've made them.  But, they're admitting that their translation of the text is imperfect because of the lack of ability to express ancient languages across into something accessible by the reader.

Does God still speak to us through imperfect translations?

What about through imperfect understandings of ideas?

I read an article the other day that made a compelling case for needing a second person plural in our translations - basically the Bible needs "y'all" and "all y'all" because we don't have the words in English do describe a Greek plural "you."  As such, we mistake "you" in some cases to speak to us individually when we should be reading it  "y'all" to speak to us as a community.

I guess I say all of this to say that I can continue to believe without a full understanding - and even an imperfect one.

I pray that God will be graceful with all of us...

 

 

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

This goes to the idea of God creating the earth in a manner that we can interpret on our own. If we don't take his word for it then we are responsible for our incorrect interpretation.

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

Something I've pondered a lot over the last few years is what if one day we get the chance to ask God all of those big questions, and the response we get it, "oh, you just weren't created to understand that."