Is it mathematically posible for Noah and his sons to have populated the earth?

by Fisherman 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Fisherman


    Maybe not. It’s interpretation.

  • Jeffro


    But Jesus and the Christian Scriptures validate the story of Noah as true (that is to say that the story is not allegorical) and not a myth —to believers.

    1. There is no evidence that Jesus said anything attributed to him decades later. 2. If Jesus believed the Noah’s ark story is true, it just discredits Jesus.

  • TD

    It's been many years since I've heard the JW's mention the water canopy theory (Morris - Whitcomb) and even longer for the annular theory (Vail)

    An intelligent person can fill in the gaps in the flood story with the supernatural if they want, but I think it only raises deeper questions.

    What, for example is faith? Is it the acceptance of realities you can't see or is it the stubborn denial of those you can?

  • Fisherman
    An intelligent person can fill in the gaps in the flood story with the supernatural.

    Not as a defense attorney wanting to convince others and not believing the story himself. He must know his client is innocent in-spite of seeming proof against him.

    is it the stubborn denial of those you can?

    Without solid evidence to stand on, Bible faith is impossible. Take for example Jesus’s miracles and I don’t mean lightning striking twice in the same spot. I mean hundreds or thousands of times to the point of being a fact to the mind of the observer, for example the Apostles. Therefore, Bible faith in Jesus’s words. Given the truth of that evidence and faced with other evidence that seems to challenge or contradict Jesus words doesn’t debunk the truth of Jesus’s words in the minds of the witnesses of the supernatural proof. It does put into question their interpretation of what Jesus meant. But given solid evidence that challenges the truth of Jesus’s words (or of the Bible) a witness would have a dilemma in understanding or believing the challenging evidence such as what you mention. But he wouldn’t stop being convinced in the Bible and mentally he couldn’t dismiss the truth of the challenging evidence. Faced with this dilemma, a witness would choose to believe God’s word because it is supernatural over the natural.

    However, the evidence you show is actually interpretation and conclusion of evidence. It is not enough to naturally falsify the flood story. It is not a measurement.

    From a believer non witness point of view, the Bible records the flood and the Bible claims to be inspired both OT and NT Bible writers validate the flood and so did Jesus. Therefore, the flood is a Bible truth that can’t be interpreted any other way. The latest JW commentary doesn’t attempt to falsify “scientific” evidence challenging the flood. The focus is that it must be true because God’s word says it is.

  • waton

    It is not just interpretation. applying mathematics and physics analysis to the noah saga as told, sinks the possibility of ever have happened. and

    pulls the foundation from under those that hope for a non existing replay with fire.

    "faith work without work is dead." the Ark never worked as designed. resign yourself.

  • cofty
    Without solid evidence to stand on, Bible faith is impossible


    ALL of the evidence proves there was no global flood. But don't worry your sort of faith is never impossible. It makes a virtue out of believing things despite the facts.

  • TD

    I'd point out that genetics is not a hard science like math, but it is not interpretation either. The observations of myself and others on this thread are directly supported by evidence and experimentation.

    We know the effects of consanguinity in humans through direct observation. We know the minimum number of breeding pairs required to repopulate a species through direct experimentation. Neither is a matter of interpretation.

  • Fisherman

    cofy my fine featherd friend!

    ALL of the evidence proves there was no global flood.

    That does not represent what I wrote. I meant that the miracles were convincing evidence to the observers to put faith in Jesus’s words.

  • Fisherman
    Neither is a matter of interpretation.

    They are because variables in the past that may affect the experiment are assumed have not changed, for example.

    I look at the sun but the sun in not actually there because I am looking at the sun in the past. If the sun suddenly disappeared from the sky, I would still see it and experience its physical effects from its past existence. —So it is observed vis-à-vis reality.

    I am not convinced that the Bible story of Noah is debunked by science.

  • cofty

    That's because you remain wilfully ignorant of the science.

Share this