Red

All this to say, it just won't do for you to insinuate that Christians of any category are unreasoning. Faith is not ignorance. It is a willingness to look at some indicators, to believe that God desires to speak to me, and combine that with faith. Blind faith is indeed foolishness, but I doubt anyone could function if they relied soley on 100% verifiable information. Even scientific theories "evolve." You know, I think that's a real good definition of Biblical, "pistou" faith/trust in God. There are more than enough evidence/indicators that point directly to Him, but at the same time God didn't squash us with evidence to the point of negating our free will, or making faith/trust virtually meaningless. The flip side of course is that He provided just enough evidence that if rejected, we are justly condemned (Romans 1-3:20). Good thing He is the God who gives righteousness and eternal life as a free gift to those who trust in Him.

What is the Bible – really? ... I offer the suggestion that there is no real Bible in existence, only a shadow of something that once was. ... The Bible of today and of history is not unifying - but a means of dividing Christians. ... It appears to me the modern Bible represents exactly and only what many modern Christians “want” to believe and the totality of all that they by their desire ever will except under covenant of G-d. Or as once was stated, “The scraps that fall from the masters table.” In other words it represents a collective will and perhaps man’s best efforts; rather than complete submission, desire and covenant to the will and power of G-d and his pure revelation and light that will and can only exist in his kingdom as he directs. The Traveler Your objections have their roots in questioning God's goodness and Hid infinite ability to provide. Really, if God couldn't preserve one book then what good is He? You say that the present Bible is essentially man's work. Since when was God unable to raise up good a capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours? And of course the Bible is divisive. Truth has a funny way of doing that when some cling to it but others reject it, "becoming wise in their own eyes." Didn't Jesus say say that families would brake apart over Him? Yes, Jesus Himself, the Prince of Peace is a very divisive individual indeed. And that's a good thing. By criticizing the Bible as "divisive," I would have to guess that in your mind the original Bible must have been a great unifying force. If so, why were there so many divisions within Christianity from the get-go (read the book of Acts for example, and Galatians; most of the Epistles were written to quell disputes). And if it was such a great unifier why did some feel the need to change it via some grand empire-wide conspiracy? Again, why couldn't the God who gave this unifying Holy Book preserve for more than a few generations. "Man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4. So what kind of useless God would leave us without our life-line? Your church teaches that all of christiandom fell into apostasy from A.D 100ish--1830. Now all those people went to spirit prison during that time and are likely still there if what your church teaches is true, since they wouldn't have known the "true Gospel." You say, 'that's why we are baptized for the dead, and we'll do more baptisms in the 1000 year kingdom. But correct me if I'm wrong, those people will never have a shot at the Celestial Kingdom--they will never get to be with their Heavenly, shut out from His presence in a lesser heaven for eternity, all because that same God failed in preserving His own word of life for future generations. You believe that God rose up a prophet in these later times to show us the way again, to restore the true Gospel? What was stopping God from doing that beforehand? No power in the universe! When people reject truth, it is not because truth itself is bad, but because they have forgotten the Majesty of God Almighty. Majestic...yep, that's my Abba. :)

It appears that you did accept my "apologist explanation" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in the matter of who killed Goliath, because instead defending your earlier charge you shifted to just taking pot-shots any where else. Anyway, in regards to the Elhanan issue, even if the original manuscript ever did read "Elhanan killed Goliath" (which it apparently did not in veiw of 2 Chronicles), then we could still undrstand it to be talking about a different Goliath from Gath killed in what is stated as a different battle, fought when David was an aging man, not a youth. You criticize the Bible on Goliath's height...have you ever been down to the farm?...did either of us ever fight in that battle? Are either of us fully aware of the range of genetic potential in humans? Which of us, based on our "extensive knowledge" can say for certain that Goliath could never have been 10 ft tall? If God wants to allow the existence of 10 foot tall warriors He can certainly do that. We are talking about the same God who split the Red Sea in the Gulf of Acaba for his people to walk through and then drowned the pursuing Egyptian army, whose chariots still remain by the way (the wood having been replaced by corol; they've been photographed, filmed and catalogued; if anyone is interested I can email the photos I have). Now if that acount is accurate, who are we to doubt Goliath's height? Across the hall in my dorm there lives an Australian basket-ball player--a Giant! I've never asked him, but he's pushing 7 1/2 ft for sure, mabye creeping up to 8. So what's 10 ft? I see him walking down the hall and Goliath doesn't seem too much of a strench at all. About David bringing Goliath's head to Saul in Jerusalem: Saul wasn't in Jerusalem at all, he was encamped with his army by the valley of Elah (v.17:2). Also, in v.55 we find that Saul actually watched David fight Goliath. So in v.57 David, fresh from the battle and holding the head in his hand, meets Saul there in Elah, probably in a tent, not in Jerusalem. Now in v.17:54 it says: "And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his [Goliath's] armour in his tent." There is no mention of bringing it to Saul. In the preceeding vereses we are told how the battle went, what the Israelites did with the spoil and then what David did with his. These three verses are a summary, a sort of time-out in the narrative which informs us that David eventually took the head with him to Jerusalem when he later conquered it. Heck, I'd have gone with a commemorative plaque instead of carrying around a giant head for a few years and then putting it in my trophy case, but to each his own I guess. "What's that smell?" Jonathan asked unto David; "Well, long story short..." David replied. Then in 17:58, did Saul forget who David was? No, he had no idea who David was at the time. Did some redactor come along and weave two different acounts together? No, it is one acount shown in a non-chronological order for teaching purposes (besides, if it was a reactor editing two stories into one, you'd think he would have done a better job of corrected any inconsistencies he saw). The teaching method or literary form used in chapters 16-18 is called "hysterologia, in which something is put last that according to the usual order should be put first" (Hard Sayings of the Bible). The purpose of the teaching is to show David's spirituallity vs. Saul's decline. So here's the chronological order I'd suggest (also from Hard Sayings): Samuel anoints David--16:1-13 David kills Goliath; Saul first meets him and gives him a military post--17:1-18:9 The Evil spirit torments Saul; harpist is needed, servant suggests David--16:14-23 Saul tries to kill David, etc.--18:10-30 Here is the key: in v.16:18 a servant recommends a certain harpist who is a "son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that cunning in playing, a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him." Props to this servant, he really sells it! Notice that the servant never mentions David's name, but Saul knows exactly who the servant is talking about (and I'm sure everyone else did), since in v.19 the king says in a letter to Jesse, "Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep." Now, was David known as a man of war when he stood before Saul in vv.17:33-39? Not a chance! Instead of saying, "I've killed 1000's of Philistines already!" David said, "uh, one time I killed a lion, and another time I killed a bear." So the episode with Goliath, and then David leading Saul's armies to many victories, slaying "10s of 1000s of Philistines" all happened before David played the harp for Saul. And on a closing note, a young man with a sling-shot in those days was a very deadly person indeed. They were often part of the military in those days, in that region. From what I understand they would usually throw rounded stones about the size of a baseball at around 100 mph. So yes, that would go through your skull like it was cheese, as happened to Goliath.

I'm not sure we can be certain that "we can reconstruct the original" perfectly. But I do believe that through study of things available and prayer, the Spirit can and does make sense of things for everyone who earnestly seeks it. ...or that in conjunction with His Spirit, it is reliable. There is some truth to what you are saying. Even Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will us to all truth. But truth needs to be objective doesn't? If the revelation of the Holy Spirit was the final word for me on what the Bible says, then who's to say I'm just making the Bible say whatever I want it to? In this case I would be subjecting the Bible under me, even if I claim that God told me what it was"really" saying. Anyone can say God told them something, and there needs to be a way to test that. So I do not think that the all-powerful God whom I know would leave us high and dry without an objective standard of truth. If the Holy Spirit leads me to a truth about the word, that truth ought to be verifiable by someone else objectively, otherwise, the truth is up for grabs. Also, the New Testament places the scripture above spiritual experience as a source for authority/truth.

I apologize again, I started this thread with the intent to answer questions but since then I've had a steady stream of other school assignments, so I haven't had a chance to sit down and look at this site till now. I should have enough time to read everthing up to this point tonight and I'll be thinkmulling over the issues over the next few days. I'll make every effort to respond. -Red

Okay - so you have changed your story. Originally you said that the bible was properly transmitted. Since you no longer maintain that... I'm dropping in for just a second, haven't to read much--thrilled to see two pages of discussion already! WOW! And Snow, No, I am not changing my story, but explaining in further detail what I really do hold to. To say that we can "reconstruct the original" and that "the bible has been properly transmitted" are the same thing. The bottomline of my view is that no portion of God's word which He intended to preserve for us has been lost (that is, from the pool of textual evidence as a whole), neither was it untrue when first written. I'm a little surprised at you Snow. I never expected you, as LDS, to be such an impirical rationalist. That kind of thing can be good, but not if it opposes God (because then it would be false). I don't think that you'll get anywhere hinting that the Bible was corrupt even when first written, and denying the historicity of certain miracles. I don't think that many other LDS would back you up on either point. I'll post more as Homework allows... THANK YOU PRISONCHAPLIAN!!!!

Snow asked: 1 Samuel 17:50 says David slew Goliath. 2 Samuel 21:19 tells us that it was Elhanan that did the deed. Which one do you want me to trust and which one do you want me to believe that was uninspiredly written or preserved? Here are the verses in question: 1 Sam 17:50 (KJV) "David prevailed over the Philistine [Goliath from Gath] with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David." 2 Sam 21:19 (KJV) "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." First of all, these two verses are describing two entirely different battles: the first when David was a boy with a slingshot and the second when He was an aging King. In fact, in this later battle he was almost killed (2 Samuel 21:15-17). So even if it did say "Elhanan slew Goliath," we need only imagine that "Goliath" was a popular name that year. But instead it says "Elhanan...slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite." But that's not the whole story. In the Hebrew it does say "Elhanan slew Goliath." This is a scribal error. I'll let some commentators explain: "Verse 19. Elhanan the son of Jaare oregim slew Goliath the Gittite. Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that µygra oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that ymjlh tyb beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from ymjl ta eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc." —Adam Clarke's Commentary "2Sa 21:19 - And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines,.... Another battle with them in the same place: where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite; the word "brother" is rightly supplied from 1Ch_20:5; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain, though some so interpret it, and take Elhanan to be David; so Jarchi, and with which agrees the Targum; but he was slain not at Gob, but in the valley of Elah, nor had David any such name as Elhanan; he was one of David's worthies, 2Sa_23:24; where he is called the son of Dodo, and in 1Ch_20:5, the son of Jair; and Lahmi there may not be the name of Goliath's brother, but, as here, the country name of Elhanan; for the words (z) there may be rendered,"and Elhanan the son of Jair, the Lehemite (i.e. the Bethlehemite), slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,''and so perfectly agrees, with this: the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam; not of Goliath's brother, but of Goliath himself, 1Sa_17:7." --John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. So does the fact of scribal error undermine the whole Bible? No. As we see here, scribal errors are caught and corrected. Inerrancy does not mean that every single copy or translation of the scriptures is perfect, but that by accounting for all the texts we have we can reconstruct the original. If we Believe that God inspired the Bible, it follows that He would preserve it as reliable (that is, of course, if one believes in God).

I figured this subject could use its own topic, instead of random posts here and there. Can the Bible be trusted at all? Are you an all or none type, or something in between? And why? We can look at alleged contradictions, moral issues, historical/archiological/scientific contentions, higher textual criticism and any other bone anyone might have to pick with God's word. Of course, any other religious literature will be fair game as well... I'll try to research and answer questions to the best of my ability (hopefully I won't be the only one...gulp!). I'll start of with an issue Snow brought up...

Okay, 1 Samuel 17 says David slew Goliath. 2 Samuel 19 tells us that it was Elhanan that did the deed. Which one do you want me to trust and which one do you want me to believe that was uninspiredly written or preserved? I'll start a new thread to respond to you. guess I'll call it "Bible Under Fire" or something cheezy and dramatic like that...and Elhanan was in 2 Sam 21:19, not chapter 19, typo I guess.

In your opinion, what is the most logical explanation? Or should we be content to not know? You are very right indeed. "Safe?" Mr. Beaver said, "He's not safe! But He's good." In a lot of ways the God of the Bible is very much like a mother bear with cubs. She is tender and caring towards them, providing everything they need; but if anyone poses a threat she tears them to shreds. Or a sheppard, he guides his sheep to grass and water, but any predator that comes by will get a hole in its head from the sheppard's slingshot. But that's only half the picture because this sheppard King takes in all lost cubs and sheep. In this little ditty, ask yourself, "who are the predators? Why are they condemned?" Can't prove your existence? The fact that you're posting seems like fairly persuasive evidence. You refer to yourself as "I." You exist because you know you exist, you love because you know you love. I know God exists because I actually know Him and love Him. We're friends. Have you fed this dragon? Petted him? Talked to Him? Did this dragon ever stick his neck out for you? Did he take on flesh and die for your sake? Is this dragon a threat to me if I reject him? Does he hold me accountable for any wrong done to you? Notice I do not dismiss his potential existence off-hand... Didn't know I was making a trap...? Do I even want to look at your handle? I'm a little weirded out... anyway.... I do not dismiss that those 1000s (millions really) of other "gods" actually "exist." I really don't know if ghosts are for real or invisible dragons, though I wonder; same for anything "supernatural." Heck, if I believe in God I ought to be open to at least the possibility. But I do know for sure that demons are real and active, and in my opinion they are the "gods" so many people worship, maybe even the ghosts we see--they'll do anything to distract us from the true Living God. So while I'm fairly sure that all those other "gods" do exist, I do not put any faith in them based on the trusting relationship I already have with God. You do not put faith in God based on your non-experience (non-relationship) with Him; also the thought that since not all religions can have it right they must all be wrong, and I'm sure many other reasons. So if there is no god to put your trust in, you may as well believe that there is no God. Jesus said in so many words, "My sheep hear my voice and come to me, they know me, they won't follow a stranger." (John 10:1-18)

If that is true, how can we trust the scriptures on gospel truths? We can't. So many gospel truths, like the resurrection, depend on historical accuracy. Perhaps you should re-think your sources. <div align="right">←</div> You mean YOU can't. I can and do. Saying my sources are suspect does nothing to make the Bible more historically or scientifically accurate. If you are aware of all the biblical error, maybe you should check them out. It not like their isn't a boatload of material on it available. I am well aware of many accusations against the Bible, I have looked into many of them too. But no I am unaware of any mistakes God made when He inspired the original writers, or any failure on His part to preserve those words for us today. I hold the Scripture above myself and all human knowledge. But you place human knowledge above the Bible, because whenever a scholar or scientist brings forth evidence that seems to discredit the Bible you seem to consistently default to the scholar. So yes, when you do that, YOU can downplay (or write off as moral mythology) the historicity of the Bible and at the same time hope in the Gospel principles it teaches (if you believe it still teaches any at all). You criticize the Bible with one side of your mouth and trust in parts of it with the other. Does that seem right to you? "friendship with the world is..." you know the rest. "trust in...(who?)...with all your heart, lean not on...(what?)..." Or have you heard this one: "The Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..." good posting with you! -Red

Well I've gotta hand it to you, you definitely schooled me there. Looks like I've got a few more years of reading ahead of me before I make a solid case in this area. If only life were like the Matrix and we could just plug all the information we need into our heads.

Yeah dude, I just got back and now you're going?! Hope not...

You may want to chew on this passage. Basically Jesus is teaching that there will be no marriage in heaven at all, which would certainly solve your dilema. Instead, we all be one family... "On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.' 25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27"Last of all, the woman died. 28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her." 29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mattew 23-30, NASB)

If that is true, how can we trust the scriptures on gospel truths? We can't. So many gospel truths, like the resurrection, depend on historical accuracy. Perhaps you should re-think your sources.

Since when is science a bad thing? Its the study of God's creation!! And when people I love get hurt they go to the hospital and I pray that God will be with the doctors and even heal the person if it is His will. It is not hypcritical because God allowed us to have science and doctors in the first place--just like He allowed the existence of Christians. Now, my problem is not with science, but it is with science when it crosses the line. When science says "we know" when they don't really know for sure I take issue with that. You see, they don't really know how old the earth is or whether or not older fossils are deeper. Radio Isotope dating has three serious flaws/falty assumptions. We'll use the potassium/argon method as an example (it is used for volcanic rocks): 1) It is not known how much potassium or argon was first present in any given rock. If we do not know how much of each was there at the start then we cannot accurately calculate how much potassium decayed into argon. 2) We do not always know if the decay rate is stable or fluctuates--if somehow the environment might slow or spead up the decay. 3) We also do not know how much potassium or argon was added or subtracted away from the rock as it endured its environment. After seeing that, I decided to forget about radio-isotopes. That, and any month-old lava rock can be dated as being millions of years old. They don't spoon-feed me, I did the homework, litterally (I am a junior at small Christian college, going for a Bible major). You could also check out the Institute for Creation Research, icr.org. These guys know what they're talking about, don't just blow them off as somehow religiously blinded. When you're on the site keep an eye out for a new book they published, "Thousands, not Billions." It is the results of an 8 year research project into radio-dating, put in laymen's term (I doubt anyone wants to read the big fat technical version). Now I'll risk getting scientific for a second: The earth drifts away from the sun each year at a certain rate. There is no reason that I know of as to why that would or even could change. At this rate the earth will drift too far away from the sun and become an ice-cube in a million years, unable to support life. Likewise, a million years ago it would have been to close and so too hot to support life, which just might cast doubt on whether there were dinosaurs 65 million ya. So based on this, the earth can't be older than a million years. Same story with the moon in relation to the earth and the tidal varinces that would be caused. If you would like exact numbers I could find them. You say you are an atheist correct? Is that a logically sound belief? I do not think so. Are you possibly more of a man of faith than me? Probably. I'll explain: Origin models which leave out the act of God are flawed, they only push the question further back, the question being: where did it come from/how did it start? If you believe the universe began as a singularity or some super-hot dot of matter then I would have to ask 'how'd it get there?' You might say matter is eternal, or something (I can't read your mind). But matter is subject to entropy and tends toward chaos not stasis. But say it was in stasis, 'how'd it blow up?' when inertia would dictate that it stay in stasis--it would not have gone bang but stayed a singularity. Oh but entropy caused the instability and it blew, but then again how did a self-decaying piece of matter get there in the first place and how could the debris become anything close to what we see now?...order to chaos, not the other way around. A self-existent, trancendant God had to be in the picture. He is the only explanation. SomeONE had to make the decision to start it all. Now it follows that that same One made you whether directly or indirectly, you are His creation and would be accountable to Him. He gave you life and it seems fairly obvious that he put you here to do good things, yet you don't (me neither). In fact you have likely wronged people one way or another (me too). These wrongs might as well have been done against the Creator Himself, and we my friend are both traitors. So what does our king do? He put his his head on the chopping block in our place, and then lived to tell about it. All we need to do is recieve His pardon (a free, un-earnable gift) and accept His Lordship over us. He is a good King, I highly recommend Him. Now you could just reject Him and remain a traitor. You can remind yourself that all of this is mythology, but you wouldn't really know that would you? No, you don't know at all, yet you insist it is so. Isn't that what so many people are calliing "faith" these days?

I am one with God. I and the Father are one. "The one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17). I did not just pick up some ideology on day and start peddling it, I am actually one with God and have the authority, privilege and duty to represent Him anywhere, any time. I would contend that the LDS leadership actually has no authority. They presume to hold the Melchisideck priesthood, the position of mediator between God and man, but Jesus is the only rightful holder of that: "So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"; just as He says also in another passage, "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." (Hebrews 5:5-6, NASB) "Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:20, NASB) "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 2:5, NASB). They also presume to hold the Aaronic priesthood, but... "Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." (Hebrews 7:11-12, NASB) "...if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second...When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:7-13, NASB) If the Law is obsolete and dissapeared because of Jesus fulfilling it, then the old priesthood which administered the Law is obsolete too, no longer with any authority. To try and continue in this priesthood is to deny the cleansing power of what Jesus did on the cross.

I think that if Mormonism is true and we really are "gods in embryo," then LDS/God, who was once a man like us, is insignificant and only playing his part in the larger picture. But we are not gods in embryo, and yes we are truly insignificant compared to God (who was always God). Yet He made us and loves us just the same, and offers us traitors (sinners against God) salvation as a free gift.

...among them would've also been 6 of the 11 witnesses to the BoM, including Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer to name a few...

Are you referring to the situations in Deuteronomy and Numbers alluded to earlier? They were not looked at in detail. But really any area you would like to bring up would be great. And no, just because God does something does not make it automatically alright. God laid down the rules of what is right and wrong, He Himself is perfect and will not be inconsistent. So we can expect Him to act righteously in every circumstance. The question of "if God does it is it alright" is really central to this whole topic. The main argument I am tryin to make being that the God of the Bible is righteousness while the LDS God is not. One last thought: If God is the giver of life then He is also the rightful taker of life. When a human takes a life they are acting as if they themselve were God. Think about it, God kills off several million of us a day just by natural causes. For example my aunt is dying of cancer right now. Why? Because God said it was time for her to go home. Nothing more or less than that.

Or give it all to Jesus, and sleep well knowing that you are under the gard of the one and only all-powerful God of the universe... lie there and contemplate His love for you. If what you say is true, then everything is really just pointless. We'll go nowhere if even the gods fail, so why even bother contemplating nothing. If gods can make mistakes or be flawed, what are you allowed to get away with?

So is this discussion over? We've probably made our points several times over and gotten so deep that no one wants to jump in, but hey, any takers? Any loose ends to tie up? either way, I thank you all for your posting.

That's dogmatic. I am a seeker of truth not dogma. ← You have lost your compass. Your dogma is that the Bible is NOT the chief source of truth by which all others must be tested. Without your compass, your search for truth will never end, going in circles and become futile. You are leaning on the wisdom of men, not God's revelation.

No, not to confound us, just to put us in awe of His creation. Sounds like a pretty insecure God that needs to think up ways to impress his inferiors. ← Well, if you were God (or a god someday) wouldn't you like to create a few animals that blew your hair back? Wouldn't you like to share the joy with others? Whenever a pretty walked by I used to say a little prayer to God, something like, "Nice work! Fearfully and wonderfully made--no kidding!!" God I think is an artist, and He likes to put His work on display whether its a dinosaur, Yosemite National Park or the first human you see after you get off the computer. I would say that dinosaurs were both pre-flood AND post-flood. I say pre-flood definately because we have the fossils from the Flood all over the world, Dinosaurs were living breathing creatures for sure and if that is true I'm sure that they were on the Ark too (as juveniles of course). Why should we ignore every single reputable scientist in the world who says that you have missed the date by 65,000,000 years? Because God does. I'm one of those nuts who thinks that the Behemoth and Leviathan of Job are actually dinosaurs. Agreed. I think that's a first. Is the ground a little cooler? did Hell just freeze over?

I looked at the link and put on my thinking cap, so at a glance... 1. Building the ark The writer seemed to assume that Noah didn't have access to iron, but he did (Genesis 4:22). Also, one of the potential sites where the ark remains (there are two) is rock formation of petrified wood in the shape of a 450 foot long boat. radar scans showed evidence of an iron frame. So we have an iron frame, lots of wood and pitch inside and out. Not pretty, and neither of us are boat experts, but that sounds sea worthy to me. 2. Gathering the animals The writer forgets about the pre-flood environment (Genesis 2:6, 1:7, 7:11) (he is assuming of cousre off-hand that the bible is wrong anyway, so if he is aware of it he is dismissing it). Basically, it would have been near tropical everywhere, and if that were the case then all the animals would be adapted to the climate wherever they traveled. And yes, of course many died out after the flood because of harsh changes. He assumes that the continents were spread out like today when a world-wide upheaval (which is what the flood really was) would separate the continents very quickly and/or raise up and throw down land masses. So it is possible that there was just one big continent at the time, allowing easy travel. If the animals were all nearby anyway (which would be possible with a globaly consistent climate) competition would not have been a problem because all the animals were vegetarians (Genesis 1:30). He also takes issue with loading the animals in 7 days. He disregards the idea that God was involved. If God can made a donkey talk then he can guide all the animals to their proper places within the ark in a timely fashion well within 7 days. 3. Fitting the animals aboard This critique always seems to assume todays count of species, but forgets about natural selection. The full criteria for two animals to be of the same species is that they CAN an DO produce FERTILE offspring. But this is somewhat arbitrary and gives a high count of species present in the world--can we assume that God defined "kind" along these terms as well? If MICROevolution does occur how can we be sure that the present diversity isn't just more like having a variety of breeds within the same kind? Bottom line: there may have been less "kinds" to manage than today (and yes, even with adding the dinosaurs that lived then). ...Its about bedtime for me, if its worth it to you we can continue down the list, but this last objection caught my eye: Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God? 1. If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles? 2. The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work? 1. He gave us a visual, He is not just the God of death, taking out whoever displeases Him; but He is the God of nature who can send it at you and your whole nation if you rebel. But the flood also shows a sign of his faithfulness, because without the flood we would never have seen a rainbow. If God had just wacked everyone, what sign would there have been that he wouldn't do so again? Also, the threat of a flood provides an opportunity for one to take faith in God--choosing to believe that He was the God who could bring something called "rain" and drown everyone would certainly lead to a trust in that God for salvation. A threat of instant death would only have been conversion by fear. 2. It did work, it certainly destroyed THOSE evil people. But God willingly saved Noah, a fallen human being who no different than us. The objection mistates (or assumes to much) the intent. So that's that at a glance. In my veiw the objections are based on too many assumptions, false or not about the Ark itself and Noah's world at the time. But above all, they are based on the idea that the Bible is NOT authoritative; an idea which any humanist is free to believe at his/her own risk. My only assumptions are that God is all-powerful and that the Bible is His word. I can't think of a safer bet.