Noah's Ark Could Not Have Happened

Before getting on to the real content of the debate, I have to say “thanks for the laugh” You said “He had to train beavers to get the wood for him” I’m assuming this is trolling for laughs. What you may not know is that the Hebrew word transliterated as “gopher” in the KJV Bible simply ported the Hebrew pronunciation over to English because we do not know what the word means. [1] Some translations guess at “cypress” but there is another word for that so they left it untranslated. It may even refer to some treatment used to make the wood more suitable for boat building. (My guess no references)Before AI recap my position I want to respond to some of PRO’s claims.I believe one of our irreconcilable differences is the scope of the flood. The Hebrew word for land used in Genesis 7 is er-ets [2] has been translated in many ways in the 2503 times it is used. Here are a few translations from the NASB (followed by the number of times they were translated that way. common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3). From this you can see that the vast majority of the times this word is translated in the sense of a region, not the entire globe (since the concept of a spherical planet circling the sun was not a part of the cosmology of the day.I agree that your definition of the word worldwide is accurate.Your use of the word worldwide and the concept of a planet circling the sun are not a good representation of the Genesis 7 account. [3] [4]Many of your misunderstandings stem from your failure at this point.You say in your first sentence “ the worldwide flood as said in the Bible.” I tried to find where you got this idea. I searched 20 versions of the Bible for the word “worldwide” and came up empty. Even when I searched for the two words “world” and “wide” there were only a few versions of the Bible that had those 2 words close to each other, none about the flood story? [5]Sorry - I can’t let it go - You said: “He had to train beavers to get the wood for him, which further specifies my argument that Noah was incapable of doing what the Bible said that he did. A man that was able to control many animals over a period of 370 days at an altitude that is barely breathable should have the ability and strength to gather at least part of his own wood.” - The Bible does not say where Noah got his wood. This is the first time I have read the absurd notion that he trained beavers to do it for him. Then you say “No one knows exactly what type of wood Noah and the gophers used.” Is it really your belief that gophers or beavers helped Noah with this building project?In round 2 you asked “How could that even be built without advanced technology?”I apologize if I misrepresented you in saying “You are making bold claims that ship builders did not know how to build ships” Let me explain. You say “ Noah would've just had to find any piece of wood he could get.” This is wrong. Lumber harvest is mentioned in antiquity. You suggest an ancient ship would not support an elephant or hippo. I gave evidence that ancient Roman shipping has had ships nearly as big as the ark, and that elephants and hippos were brought by ship to ancient Rome. The knew how to build wooden ships to carry heavy cargo. They also made some really big wooden ships. In round 3 you say that “A women in high heels makes 1600 PSI per step. Think about it.” - Are you saying a woman in high heels would break a wooden boat? That is not the correct. Seafaring cultures knew how to make boats. The knew how to make them seaworthy. They knew how to transport (heavy) cargo. [6]In round 2 I asked “Did you really think Noah had woolly mammoths on the ark?" - You said “No, I do not. I was just providing an example for an extinct animal. Please read my text more carefully before posting a response.” - I went back and re read your text where you said “A rhino can weigh well over a ton, and so can many other animals. Plus the extinct ones (the ones that are extinct today, like the woolly mammoth) would also have to be saved, just adding to an already unsustainable weight. ” - Your words clearly say that animals “like the woolly mammoth) would also have to be saved” I’m sure you can see how I got the idea you were confused on the time (and scope) of the flood.We continue to have disagreement on the scope of the flood. The best evidence from the Biblical text, from other histories and from science suggest a regional flood that wiped out the region where Noah lived. This disagreement on the scope of the flood seems to be a problem we are not getting past. - I argue that the regional flood described in the Bible is possible. - You argue that a global flood is impossible. - The Bible text does not require a global flood. Please accept that we disagree on the scope of the flood.You say “ A ten-year old farmer would not be able to handle a giant elephant after a year flood. Please re-select your word choice” - Please check out this and other pictures. [7] [8]You say “ Noah being 600 is a legitimate fact to disprove this story. Any "fact" in 6-8 I can use and so can you. You are not the one to decide the rules of the debate.” - Actually you stated the rules and scope of the debate in round 1. You laid out your argument in round 1 and then concluded with “So you, con, will have to argue against these points and prove each one wrong.” I have argued against these points (and more, even trained beavers) but I believe the debate about the extreme age of people in Genesis deserves a debate of its own. [9] [10]You quote me saying - "You makes more bad assumptions." I'm sorry... You makes?!?! Dude, don't be a hypocrite. Guilty as charged if you are referring to grammar. The bad assumptions I was referring to were things like: - global flood - No oxygen at 29,000 feet - freezing at 29,000 feet - millions of animalsYou claim “It is also said that God erased all evidence of the flood” and reference Genesis 5. I have never heard that position before.In your comments about rainwater are not correct. [11]You are mistalking Freshwater like lakes and ponds with rein water.Regarding tipping the ark you say “. It actually could've tipped over. It is a long shot, I admit, but it is possible. I will give you credit of making a good point here, but it does not completely disprove it.” Actually, you are trying to prove that the Biblical story of the ark is impossible. As con, my position is that it is possible. You have the BOP to prove it is impossible. I seem to be having a hard time communication without offense.In saying "I am hoping you get back on track in round 3", I meant to the original points that framed in the round 1 My intent was not be unkind.I conclude that there is no reason to doubt a regional flood of Noah’s known world.This fits the Bible text and is not impossible as PRO calims.Vote CON[1] http://biblehub.com...[2] http://biblehub.com...[3] http://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com...[4] http://biologos.org...[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.chiangmai-mail.com...[8] http://thumbs.dreamstime.com...[9] https://www.apologeticspress.org...[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...