Boaz, I think you are teasing me - you cannot possibly be serious.

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that you are discussing important modern-day issues, I wouldn't even bother to rise to the bait, but surely, you cannot possibly imagine that there actually was a real Ark etc.?

Just to play along for a moment, could you place this event in a timeframe that I can relate to?

Only one more question. If you believe this story, then you presumably are also have to be a fully paid-up Creationist?

Wow.

The only thing that takes more faith than believing in the Genesis account is the ridiculously flawed theory of evolution. To believe that takes a lot of blind faith.

Well Pericles, there is some evidence to suggest a big flood. There are large areas of mesopotamia that have below the current sand layer, a very thick layer of silt. Below that is rich fertile soil. This gives the suggestion that there was massive inundation. As for it being a world flood, well that might be a little far-fetched, but remember that these are the writings of people without the knowledge about the world that we have - to them the middle east would have been the whole world. Also remember that these have been written and rewritten, translated and retranslated over the years, and there is much to suggest that what is now in the bible has been exaggerated over time to appear more holy and supernatural. You need to look at what the bible says in light of both this and commonsense. So, was there a flood? Yes, probably there was, but not to the extent recorded in the bible as it now stands.

Country Gal, I'm perfectly willing to accept a flood. There are many ancient stories and myths and legends that speak not only about a flood, but also about the fact that it was a result of the wrath of the gods.

http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood2-t.html

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/561290

I asked Boaz, does he believe the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story? He said, yes he does.

If one is motivated not by the realities of living together in peace and harmony in a fairly turbulent part of the world, but by the fulfilment of some ancient prophecy, it is reasonable to ask for some insight into the basis of that ancient prophecy.

And as far as I can tell - Boaz hasn't responded yet to my question on Creationism - the only basis for settling the Israel/Palestine issues, for Boaz, is to rely upon evidence that in turn relies upon the world being only 6,000 years old.

So my question was less about Creationism itself, but more about the quality of logic and reasoning ability that is brought to the table in discussions that affect the lives and futures of real people, living in real difficulties, in the twentyfirst century.

runner's view is well known:

>>The only thing that takes more faith than believing in the Genesis account is the ridiculously flawed theory of evolution. To believe that takes a lot of blind faith.<<

Which is another crock. It is in fact not necessary to "believe" in evolution as far as it has presently been explained, because we evolutionists are absolutely certain to know more about it in a hundred years, just as we know more today than we did a hundred years ago.

Which is more than can be said for a Creationist.

It must be like living in a vacuum. To ignore every new discovery about the mystery of our life on this tiny planet, simply because it doesn't include Ham, Shem and Japeth.

Which reminds me. If Noah was 600 years old when he built the Ark - how old were his sons? And their wives?

Boaz - any thoughts?

Sorry Pericles, misunderstanding. I guess there very probably was an Ark, and a Noah etc, but just not to the extent of literal interpretation of the bible. There is a very interesting book that tackles some of these aspects its called Solomon's Shadow (Laurence Gardner) and is actually about the history of the Freemasons and the myths that they rely on. But it tackles issues relating to creationism and evolution with a very interesting take on it. In that Adam and Eve were indeed the first of the JEWISH race and were created, but using a form of genetic engineering (actually fiddling with embryos). Seems a little way out there, but the rest of the book seems pretty conservative. Its got some good references to ancient materials, and so isnt purely speculative. The names that the ancients used fit remarkably well to what we know now. Eg the first man to be granted the priesthood was Adama (or Adapa) = Adam. He was a mighty-man (or hu-mannan). Its worth a read, and manages to fit creationism and its timeline into the bigger picture.

CG first....

You said: "but dont condone wholesale slaughter to make this happen"

I think you need to re-read my post mate... 'slaughter' ? err.. did you note the 2nd point I made "It's right to defend itself justly" where do you get slaughter out of that ? *pinch* :)

Pericles. I am a creationist but not a paid up one. I don't think it would be fruitful to enter into all the specifics of Noah, Creation and the ages etc of who'sywhatsit and company. All we would be doing is re-hashing many arguments from both sides. You are most welcome to use google to your hearts content and see those sides for the argument. Do I believe in a literal ark ? Yep..I sure do. Again... there is evidence which may or may not point to it, you make the call.

I find it rather amusing that when one simply mentions words here.. our resident self styled scholars jump in leaps and bounds unparalleled by a top olympic athlete to the very core of the most weird beliefs and claims and then attach them to my own words like a limpit mine.

I mention a general idea and suddenly you blokes leap to the most extreme and fanciful extentions of that. C'mon.. you can do better.

Once you blokes start mining in the rich theological ore deposits of the Old Testament..even the boring genealogies.... you will maybe see some light one day :)