|
|
|
|
|
| | The real Noah's Ark.Page 10 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) | From a previous post:
"Science MUST be the approach because it is the only philosophical process which objectively evaluates evidence and rejects the unlikely or impossible in favor of the likely and possible..."
And:
From the OP:
"There was a documentary on the History Channel some time back that researched the Biblical flood story.In talking to geologists,it was shown that there was no evidence of a global flood,...The documentary also showed that it would've been impossible to construct such a large vessel out of wood,saying the wood would become soft in the water,deforming the boat and taking it down.It also stated that carrying two of every living species was quite impossible...."
There is no guarantee of objectivity as some scientists, in their efforts to prove things, might also be influenced by their personal goals, funding sources, beliefs, or non-beliefs, (in other words, a hidden agenda) and may be deliberately or subconsciously rejecting those 'unlikely' things that do not line up with 'their' possibilities.
When I first responded to this topic I had not read it all from the beginning. Now that I have, there was a much earlier post that got my attention.
"It is written that Noah was required to carry 2 of "every kind"..
~The word "kind", being pertinent"
From my long ago school days in Science, I vaguely remember the classifications I was taught -something like - Kind, Family, Species, etc. I can't remember exactly. It's always stuck in my mind, though, because if several (or many) species belong to one 'kind' then, for Noah to take 2 of a kind, it would have meant there wouldn't have been a need for 'every' species. I apologize for possibly repeating something already mentioned, but this seems quite relevant to me. When I tried to find some info, that would confirm my memory, what I found on biological classifications is very different from what I was taught in school. My, I feel like a dinasaur!
It makes me wonder... things keep getting changed... I know it's been said before (not necessarily in this thread), but I'm beginning to question whether there is anything we can actually trust about ANY written work, be it ancient or contemporary, religious or scientific. If things can be greatly changed within one lifetime, or a thousand, and also, never even agreed upon (whether in the religious or scientific community), this gives MUCH room for error and mis-information in ALL sources one might turn to for so-called knowledge.
My faith is not dependent on the Bible, but because of my faith, I do give the Bible validity. I think the story of a global flood and Noah's ark may have happened. Actually, the more I read the different sources that have been provided on this thread, and also from a previous flood topic, the more assured I am that it did. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 5:31:25 PM |
My faith is not dependent on the Bible, but because of my faith, I do give the Bible validity. I think the story of a global flood and Noah's ark may have happened. Actually, the more I read the different sources that have been provided on this thread, and also from a previous flood topic, the more assured I am that it did.
Even tho we know, without ANY doubt whatsoever, that it actually didn't?
I find it rather funny that people argue back & forth about the validity of the flood myth but apparently have NO probelm at all believing that Noah was, what was it? 600? 900? years old.... | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 6:04:07 PM |
I find it rather funny that people argue back & forth about the validity of the flood myth but apparently have NO probelm at all believing that Noah was, what was it? 600? 900? years old....
Don't forget, not only was Noah over 6oo years old, but he and his 5 immediate family members repopulated THE ENTIRE PLANET.
Anyone believing in the biblical flood is deluded. The flood couldn't have happened, and a family can't reproduce without seriously negative results.
They are going to believe what they believe, even if they have to close their eyes, cover there ears and scream, "Na, na, na, na, na, na, na" to do it.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA, Earth. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 7:02:30 PM | | George Bush is proof that the survivors of the biblical flood bred within their own family. So there is your scientific proof. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 7:50:36 PM | Ok....been to the USGS site and they have no records of a single, massive, time consuming study done by anyone or group to see if the entire earth has ever been flooded. BUT, what has been are a few studies of the many different singular studies that have been done on various core samples at various times by different studies for different reasons and have not uncovered anything to show a one time global flooding. BUT, this also reveals that a one time, long time study done specifically to see if a one time global flood did take place has never happened. THAT is why you will not find on the net or in any books a mentioning of such a study because it does not exist. It has not yet been done.
Now for something I mentioned earlier. This is going to stick in the craw of a few on here. Around 1912 a German lecturer in astronomy and meteorology, Alfred L. Wegener, presented a theory called Pangaea.
Now we are all understanding the Bible comes from writings (fictional or not) that date at least to 2000 years ago.
Remember my theory of a single continent being flooded earlier, even if it flys in the face of scientific evidence? Well consider this.....
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days "WAS THE EARTH DIVIDED;"and his brother's name was Joktan.
I know, that could mean the people were divided or tribes were divided...not the earth's land massess. So lets read the next verse and then reconsider things.....
Genesis 10: 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these "WERE THE NATIONS DIVIDED IN THE EARTH AFTER THE FLOOD".
The theory of Pangaea was evidently considered a couple thousand years or more BEFORE the invention of flying? Or intercontinental sailing? Gen. 10:25 is very explicit in stating the earth was divided in Peleg's day.......not in anyone's days that followed him.
In summary if you read the verses as they state what happened (you won't find any other explanation in the Bible) the flood took place while the Earth was one continent that we now call Pangaea. After the flood the earth divided itself and then on seperate continents the people on them divided themselves from among themselves.
Pleasssseee remember the above is Bibilical....not science, so keep that in mind when replying. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 8:17:05 PM | they have no records of a single, massive, time consuming study
It's not only unneccessary, but a waste of time. A global flood should leave global evidence. Every study gets farther and farther away from that. A global flood is demonstrably impossible, moreso when it's the Biblical flood. There's no point wasting time digging for evidence which a) cannot exist, and b) has already been shown to not exist.
"WERE THE NATIONS DIVIDED IN THE EARTH AFTER THE FLOOD".
Nations. Not land masses, but cultures, societies or countries. Essentially, peoples were divided. Which is in line which a number of evidenciary sources. Geological and archaeological evidence of Black Sea flooding. Linguistic and genetic evidence of Black Sea peoples dispersing through central Asia after that event. Literary evidence in the form of a wide range of flood stories of similar ages in those cultures and others nearby. Basically, there is no evidence for a flood consistant with the Bible, but there is plenty of evidence for the Biblical story being an exaggeration of a real event.
Gen. 10:25 is very explicit in stating the earth was divided in Peleg's day.......not in anyone's days that followed him.
As you say, there are many possible interpretations of this. When taken with the other passage you cited, the only meaning specifically referred to is a division of peoples. When viewed in the context of Pangaia...it's meaningless because there's no reason to consider Pangaia and humans as co-existant. In fact, the Columbia River is older than humans, older the the Cascade Mountains, and FAR younger than Pangaia or even Laurasia. It's just not tenable. All these "maybes" and "what ifs" are great, but still pointless since they're still confronted by a string of unsurmounted impossibilities and a weight of contravening evidence.
Regarding changing classifications...
The classification system for life has not changed appreciably. There was never the term "kind" included. "Kingdom" was and is the word used, and has been since Linnaeus created the system nearly 300 years ago. What HAS changed is our understanding of relationships between species. That's the strength of science - it adapts to take the best explanation consistant with evidence [even though scientists are human and therefore subject to bias and error]. The Bible however, does not change, no matter how blatantly wrong it is shown to be. It's unfortunate that so many people would rather cling to a consistant error than adapt to improving and changing answers. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 8:44:44 PM | I'm going to say this because it is (Bibilically) related to the explantion of the flood.
What do you say to Gen. 1:9 Frogo that is actually the first Bibilical verse that makes a reference to our present theory of Pangaea? You know, the one that speaks of the waters being gathered in one place and the "dry land" (note singular useage of the word land) appear? You will find the word land wrote as lands in other places. Just odd that one of the first times it is used it is in a singular usage.
See, what science has been finding out and discovering about the earth and confirming certain things as fact had already been established by a bunch of story tellers. But since we have no 'reference' for their ideas that went into story form more then 2000 years ago, science refuses to address how those age old story tellers knew things that they just should not of even had any ideas about.
The story tellers left out any information about the present weather conditions and various forms of exotic creatures that existed whether they were part of an ice age or global warming era because the importance of their writings obviously centered on their faith in the belief of things not seen or felt.
But.....that does not take away from the fact that certain things were known by them that they (according to science) should not of had a clue to. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 9:05:26 PM | Post hoc fallacy. There is no indication that Genesis refers to Pangaia. You're stuffing a rather large and specific modern concept into an extremely vague Biblical passage. Where in that Genesis is there ANY indication of exactly WHICH lands were divided? Where is there any indication of a knowledge of the Americas or Antarctica? It's not there. You were the one who said the passage could refer to many things. If genesis is that vague, how do you justify contradicting yourself in order to state that it refers to Pangaia?
science refuses to address how those age old story tellers knew things that they just should not of even had any ideas about.
Not so. Science has provided more than one rational explanation for the flood story, which is consistant with evidence. That evidence does not indicate a global flood, but it DOES indicate a "world changing" event for cultures of 10000 years ago, whose lands and nations were "parted" when a freshwater lake became a saltwater sea. Add several thousand years of oral stories in multiple languages, addition of faith...and the story diverges somewhat from the original facts.
There are numerous other examples, which have been discussed elsewhere. More post hoc fallacy and shoehorning of modern concepts into vague ancient commentary. Confirmation that some ancient city actually existed really doesn't say anything about miraculous knowledge of Biblical writers. Cities last hundreds of years and become widely known. The fact that real cities are mentioned in works of fiction does not render such works factual. Nor do they render any accompanying Biblical text more "scientific". | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 10:46:39 AM | You have a real problem Frogo with not addressing questions from the verses of the book this thread is from.
"Post hoc fallacy. There is no indication that Genesis refers to Pangaia."
Once again I will ask for you to explain your interpretation of Gen. 1:9 and what you believe the author is explaining is happening.
Then I'll ask you to give your belief of what Gen.10: 25 is refering to. If it is not making a reference to the earth itself being divided show me in that verse where it is saying the familys/nations on/in the earth were being divided. Show me by your belief that it means something else besides by using the words "...it could mean...". Some verses need decyphering I will agree. But others do not need decyphering. Gen.10:25 is one that needs no decyphering UNLESS you refuse the possibility that it is possible that ancient writers knew of the theory of Pangaea. Then you will decypher it.
Then I will ask you to look at Gen. 10: 32. Again. Tell me what of this verse needs decyphering? Is it stating the earth was being divided? Or was it stating that the people and nations in the earth were being divided? Or maybe this one is speaking of all three things happening?
Since you think my interpretaion is incorrect....show me where your interpretation is correct. Because if you do not have a correct interpretation, that means mine is not incorrect either. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 11:40:51 AM | Once again I will ask for you to explain your interpretation
Asked and answered with reference to 10:32. A single culture living around a large freshwater lake. Their "land" and peoples divided by the waters when the waters of the Mediterranean flooded in to form a sea. Now you have a larger body of water without continuous land around it. Sounds a lot like a land and people divided by water, AND it's historically, archaeologically, and anthropologically consistant.
Then I'll ask you to give your belief of what Gen.10: 25
Again asked and answered. Same scenario fits logically and is consistant with evidence.
But others do not need decyphering
Right. So where is the verse that specifically identifies Pangaia? A Pangaia which existed hundreds of millions of years before humans. Incidentally, for primitive human cultures of that region, the splitting of Pangaia would have been equal to the flooding of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Why? Because the formation of Laurasia and Gondwana included the formation of the Tethys Sea, the direct ancestor of the Med/Black/Caspian Seas! So how is filling of an inland sea hundreds of millions of years ago superior to flooding of the same seas 10000 years ago? You know...roughly when the flood is SAID to have occured? And while humans actually existed?
Then I will ask you to look at Gen. 10: 32.
When does "nation" ever refer to a land mass? It refers to a united group of people. If a land mass is associated with them, it's incidental. Besides, a known prehistoric event fits the story far better than any shoehorning of Pangaia.
Because if you do not have a correct interpretation, that means mine is not incorrect either.
More fallacy. False dichotomy. Your argument is inconsistant with evidence and is wrong on that basis. Mine stands alone, and right or wrong, does not influence the consistancy of yours. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 2:43:32 PM | Once again I will ask for you to explain your interpretation (of Gen. 1:9)
Your response....
"Asked and answered with reference to 10:32. A single culture living around a large freshwater lake. Their "land" and peoples divided by the waters when the waters of the Mediterranean flooded in to form a sea. Now you have a larger body of water without continuous land around it. Sounds a lot like a land and people divided by water, AND it's historically, archaeologically, and anthropologically consistant."
Ohhhhh.....ok Frogo, explain to me how you are going to make a reference from a verse that was recorded when people were living to a verse that is telling about the earth's formation BEFORE people were on that earth??? Are you following????
Let me explain again....Gen. 1:9 is a description from a person who believes they know how the earth was created BEFORE people were on the earth. You cannot in any way or fashion say people existed at the time of Gen. 1:9 when the story states at that time they did not exist. You have to go with the story....not with how you would like to change it to fit your meaning.
your words....
"Right. So where is the verse that specifically identifies Pangaia?"
So I will ask again...by this single verse (Gen. 1:9) that is telling of how the earth looked (before people dwelled on it) how do you think that earth looked if all the land above the water and the waters around that land were in two different areas? You need to read that verse. It does state that the water was gathered in one place AND THEN the land appeared. So if the water was gathered in one place FIRST (according to the verse) and then the land appeared, how do you think that would have looked geographically? This is an easy answer...don't complicate it.
I said...
"Then I'll ask you to give your belief of what Gen.10: 25"
Your reply....
"Again asked and answered. Same scenario fits logically and is consistant with evidence."
Do you know the meaning of the name Peleg? It means "division". It is 'thought' by (religious and non-religious) scholars of the Bible that there was a reason for why that name was in this specific verse and why it accompanied the statement the earth was divided in his days. They believed that he was so named for one or both of two things happening; the division of the earth itself (Gen. 10:25) and or the division of the nations in the earth.(Gen. 10:32).
In your explanation of these two verses to show it was ONLY about people and nothing else you do not explain the differences in the sentences.....verse 25 "...in his days was the EARTH divided; and verse 32 "...were the NATIONS divided IN the earth..." Those are two very different readings but they can also be MADE to sound similar. In verse 25 it says nothing of familys, nations, peoples or the such being divided. It ONLY states the earth divided. One more thing....if what you say was true that both verses refer to people being divided why do you think the author thought it more important to write the name Peleg in verse 25 with a singular reference to the earth instead of where it should of went in (but was not included in) verse 32 as you state it refers to people? | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 5:37:46 PM | BECAUSE
If you take the timeline of the bible seriously.. then you have only 6000 years to work with (begats and such) I can't see a line such as "the earth was divided" as being a scientific observation. It divided many times... and came togethe and divided and came together and...etc...
Pangaea.. as a landmass, hasn't existed in a much longer time than that..ummm.. by thousands of millions of years.. I believe before the dinosaurs actually. (I apologize, it's 250 million- 180 million years ago..mesozoic and paleozoic periods.. and ended in the early Jurassic)
How this relates to a global flood at the end of the stone age... or even early iron age..I don't know. Because... the continents were pretty much as they are today...and how come the Bible never mentions the last ice age?...which DID have people and wasn't all that long ago (10,000 years ago?) There was no one around to record such things.. and even if there were.. it happened so slowly they would not have been aware of it.
Do you have any idea of how long the actual separation of pangeaea into the landmasses we have know would have taken? The tectonic plates move at about 3 - 6 INCHES a year. I can't do the math.. but even I know that's a long time. alpost 3 geological ages wow
Peace | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 5:56:15 PM | | ^^^^^^^^the answer for this is found in catastrophic plate tectonics. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 6:11:41 PM | But it doesn't fit with physics (?) (see now you made me go and look things up...s'okay..i like to learn new things)
Plate tectonics occurred, but catastrophically. Slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along continental margins. This lowered the viscosity of the mantle, leading to meters-per-second runaway subduction. The earth's magnetic field rapidly reversed several times. Steam caused a global rain. Flood basalts erupted. The lighter mantle material of the new ocean floors made them rise, causing the oceans to flood the continents. The flood carried and redistributed sediments. The process slowed almost to a stop when nearly all the old ocean floor had been subducted. Subsequent cooling of the ocean basins caused them to sink to where they are today.
Source:
Austin, S. A., J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman and K. P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., pp. 609-621.
Rebuttal
1. Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:
* Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.
* Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old.
* As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.
* Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink.
* Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.
2. Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.
3. Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science.
References:
1. McPhee, J., 1998. (See below)
| |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 6:18:23 PM | | I'm impressed Ravenstarr--you're very quick on the draw(research references) and hit the nail too!! However, considerable effort yet remains in reorganizing and reinterpreting geological field observations in terms of this new paradigm at least from the Creationist's view. As for the rest of your contributions here and others- I will get back...I did have some things to throw at 'ya but it will just take me too much time right now. thanks, and peace. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 9:57:26 PM | I'm gonna throw a wrench in the cogs here about something all debate so that you can have a different reconsideration of the Biblical time element regarding Noah, etc.
Paul said it was better not to marry. If we take that one saying it flys in the face of one of the first commandments given....man for woman to be fruitful and multiply. Not an exact quote.
Peter said one day is with the Lord as a thousand years. This was not a revalation...like what Paul said. Peter was speaking to scoffers of the second coming and he tossed in a time element. Peter did not say "And the lord said..." or any such thing of this time element. So it could of been something of his own deducement from his mathmatical abilities as he was a tax collector which meant he knew math. Maybe he dabbled in it to figure out Biblical time lines, who knows.
My point being is that I do not believe it is actually known how long it took (in our time frame) God to make this earth in his 7 day time period. His time line might be one that we are slowly ajusting to and correcting as we get better with dating things through new ways of doing it.
By the way, thought I would throw out this bone....(speaking of the creation) 2 peter 3: 5 "...and the earth standing out of the water and in the water..."(island?) :6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (reference to Noah and the flood?) | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 10:02:18 PM |
considerable effort yet remains in reorganizing and reinterpreting geological field observations
Shoehorn. Silk purse, sow's ear. In other words, how to take science and twist it into pseudoscience to suit the agenda. It always comes back to creating a scenario which is completely unscientific and unsupported in order to refute well-supported scientific conclusions which show the Bible to be...non-science.
Let me explain again....
Okay, I see your point. Thank you for clarifying that for me. However, I'm not actually going to directly address it. The Bible tells a story of a time when no-one existed to know the reality. That story doesn't actually offer any details which allow anything more than superficial similarity to be seen. It's like telling a story of a flying creature. You conclude it to be a gryphon, because gryphons fly and you believe in gryphons. Of course, there's no evidence gryphons ever existed, and you've ignore all the KNOWN airborne creatures, including Draco, gliding geckos, gliding frogs, flying snakes, hatchet fish, flying fish, all manner of insects, parachute spiders, birds, pterosaurs, bats, flying squirrels, and colugos. That which has evidenciary support is dismissed in favor of an unsupported concept which lacks any appreciable comparison OR evidence.
You need to read that verse. It does state that the water was gathered in one place AND THEN the land appeared. So if the water was gathered in one place FIRST (according to the verse) and then the land appeared
Okay, lets show the OTHER faults with this. There's no evidence that Pangea appeared out of the water. In fact, it is not even the first land mass, but a derived land mass which arose from multiple continents that existed before it. Supercontinent Rodinia broke into four continents, which recombined and broke up in various combinations until Pangea was eventually formed...and then broke up again. There is no instance of land appearing out of the water, and Pangea isn't the only instance of "land divided". So once again, where does Genesis specify Pangea? How is Pangea a more rational choice than Rodinia? How is it a more rational choice than the circum-Mediterranean or circum-Black Sea lands.
As far as land rising out of the sea, or however one wishes to word it, there doesn't need to be a real world correlation. You're still shoehorning without evidence. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Once upon a time there was only a single continent, therefore Genesis is right because it speaks of a single land. Bull and completely unsupported. There are lots of similar tales. At least one has the land on the back of a turtle, but hey, it's a single land rising out of the waters, and that sounds like Pangea, so Pangea must have been a giant turtle.
Long story short...connecting Genesis to Pangea is a complete fairy tale. There is nothing beyond a vague coincidental similarity. After that, there's no actual point for point confirmation.
On the other hand...
Do stories get exaggerated in the telling? Yes.
Is this more prevalent when they are passed on orally? Yes.
Is there evidence of a single global flood? No.
Is there a single consistant story linking worldwide cultures through the Biblical story? No.
Are there similar consistant stories linking proximal cultures to the Biblical story? Yes.
Is the time frame consistant with real events? Yes.
Are there connections between the cultures sharing these stories? Yes.
- They often share linguistic origins which date to a time and place consistant with a massive regional flood.
- The spread of these languages and stories is also consistant with stories of peoples divided and dispersed following the "Great Flood".
Does Genesis originate with cultures likely to have an oral or written story of known events? Yes.
Take note of the "yes" answers. Now put the real world events in the context of simple cultures of 10000 years ago, with no written records and no demonstrable knowledge of the vastness of the world. Now, what likely happens when such an event occurs? Do the people flee in all directions, probably settling in vastly disparate places? Do they tell stories of the event, of their flight, of their culture divided and scattered? Do they exaggerate? Is accuracy maintained for thousands of years without writing anything down? Is the biblical flood consistant with this scenario?
edit
"...and the earth standing out of the water and in the water..."(island?)
I'd be inclined to agree. Thera/Atlantis? The same description might also apply to a seashore, particularly in reference to rising waters.
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (reference to Noah and the flood?)
Although again, this could also involve Thera/Atlantis, as the time frame and geographical area are consistant. Even more likely, multiple stories were confabulated in the retelling. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 10:14:41 PM | I like to think that the fire that is to destroy the Earth like the flood is a consciousness awakening that sweeps the world like a fire storm, and there are many verses that compare the word of the Lord to fire etc.. Could it also be that the biblical flood was that God poured his spirit out on man like a flood, for there are many verses that say things just like that. That God will pour his spirit upon man like a flood.
I think the truth to understanding these scriptures lies in symbolism and esoteric knowledge, the hidden truths. Of course I also think that people that take the bible literally are deceived and not able to understand its teachings by doing so. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 7/19/2008 11:58:18 AM |
I think the truth to understanding these scriptures lies in symbolism and esoteric knowledge, the hidden truths. Of course I also think that people that take the bible literally are deceived and not able to understand its teachings by doing so.
That is, and should be the future of all religions. Literal interpretation of ancient religious writings has left a horrible legacy behind. The Inquisition, the Dark Ages, suicide bombers,fanaticism,mental illness,in short, nothing good that I can think of.
I've always believed that the purpose of a religion, is self improvement, to make you a better person. Fanatics are definitely not better people. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:45:50 PM | You guys should read the book Noah's ark and the ziusudra epic
Has some pretty good stuff on possible snafu when some ancient translator scewed up the base number system for peoples age's and years. As well as good stuff on Noah's flood being based on a Sumerian event. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 7/19/2008 4:56:48 PM | | That's right, ZBonks. Ziusundra was the model for the Genesis myth. That's what the History Channel documentary was about. Quite fascinating. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 7/25/2008 10:39:14 PM | It's actually kind of adorable when creationists embrace such an obviously ridiculous and stupid story as Noah's Ark, which has more plot holes than your standard Michael Bay movie, and which the average 8-year-old can debunk.
Really? A lone 900-year-old alcoholic built a boat large enough to carry 2 of every "kind" (which of course creationists just make up their own definition for in order to reconcile the obvious absurdity of the story) of animal that wouldn't immediately collapse and sink under its own weight?
And he didn't tell anyone?
Oh yeah, and the boat would have had to carry all the food for all the animals and all the excrement from all the animals.
He'd have had to section off the boat to keep the predators from eating their prey.
And I guess the great apes served as his crew, right? Cause of course every large ship has to have a crew.
I mean, seriously, just think of the logistics for, like, two seconds. It's really the most ridiculous story imaginable. Even the $cientology Xenu story is more plausible than this. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 7/26/2008 5:37:52 PM |
Really? A lone 900-year-old alcoholic built a boat large enough to carry 2 of every "kind"
I didn't know that Noah was an alcoholic. I'm warming to him a bit...
 | |
|
|
|
|
Page
10
of
10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
|
|
Home
login 
