Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.
Agreed 100%.
Are you just now figuring this out? Where have you been all your life? The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population. Most Christians also state that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, so there is nothing new there, either.
I am sorry that up-til-now the only people you listen to on matters pertaining to the Bible are literalists. It certainly seems they are the only people you care to discuss our loving God with.
The one thing literalists have going for them that atheists do not: Literalists have faith in God.
"The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population.
Horseshit.
And you said you believed the story. Now you say you don't. why not be honest the first time?
So, where are the remains? All of those people in the Middle East (forget global) that were drowned when the Floods came, and covered even the mountains in the region, would have left remains. There would be geological strata with all of the fossilised remains of those people God drowned. Why have they never been found? Additionally, where are the remains of all of the animals that were drowned? Why is there not a scintilla of evidence that such a deluge occurred in the region?So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.
Agreed 100%.
Are you just now figuring this out? Where have you been all your life? The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population. Most Christians also state that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, so there is nothing new there, either.
I am sorry that up-til-now the only people you listen to on matters pertaining to the Bible are literalists. It certainly seems they are the only people you care to discuss our loving God with.
The one thing literalists have going for them that atheists do not: Literalists have faith in God.
"The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population.
Horseshit.
And you said you believed the story. Now you say you don't. why not be honest the first time?
Of course I believe the story. Never said I didn't. The story, in its original language, doesn't insist that it was a global flood. I agree with the original language. There was a flood that was going to destroy everyone, but God saved mankind from being totally annihilated. A good man was saved from this catastrophe, and his descendants lived on.
So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.
Agreed 100%.
Are you just now figuring this out? Where have you been all your life? The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population. Most Christians also state that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, so there is nothing new there, either.
I am sorry that up-til-now the only people you listen to on matters pertaining to the Bible are literalists. It certainly seems they are the only people you care to discuss our loving God with.
The one thing literalists have going for them that atheists do not: Literalists have faith in God.
"The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population.
Horseshit.
And you said you believed the story. Now you say you don't. why not be honest the first time?
Of course I believe the story. Never said I didn't. The story, in its original language, doesn't insist that it was a global flood. I agree with the original language. There was a flood that was going to destroy everyone, but God saved mankind from being totally annihilated. A good man was saved from this catastrophe, and his descendants lived on.
So, where are the remains? All of those people in the Middle East (forget global) that were drowned when the Floods came, and covered even the mountains in the region, would have left remains. There would be geological strata with all of the fossilised remains of those people God drowned. Why have they never been found? Additionally, where are the remains of all of the animals that were drowned? Why is there not a scintilla of evidence that such a deluge occurred in the region?
Well, in his defence, he's not "throwing out" the language. Rather he is retranslating the original text in a way that no Bible Scholar ever has. He apparently know more about how the Hebrew language is meant to be translated than every expert ever.So, it's not true, and there was no global flood, and it was the words of man, not god.
Agreed 100%.
Are you just now figuring this out? Where have you been all your life? The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population. Most Christians also state that the Bible was written by man, inspired by God, so there is nothing new there, either.
I am sorry that up-til-now the only people you listen to on matters pertaining to the Bible are literalists. It certainly seems they are the only people you care to discuss our loving God with.
The one thing literalists have going for them that atheists do not: Literalists have faith in God.
"The only people who insist that there was a global flood are Bible literalists which are a very small portion of the Christian population.
Horseshit.
And you said you believed the story. Now you say you don't. why not be honest the first time?
Of course I believe the story. Never said I didn't. The story, in its original language, doesn't insist that it was a global flood. I agree with the original language. There was a flood that was going to destroy everyone, but God saved mankind from being totally annihilated. A good man was saved from this catastrophe, and his descendants lived on.
Ha, you had to jump through quite a few hoops, there. Personally, when I have to toss out all the facts of a story and the language in order to make it true, I just decide it's false.
The Middle East would be the region. Or do you mean, literally, just where Noah lived? So, god destroyed, what? 50 people? And that was "all life under the heavens"? And that required a 135 meter boat to survive?!?! Shit, a good raft, with a rudder would have sufficed! And why would animals be needed to save? All the animals had to do was out run the storm to an affected area. Boy, your version of the story just gets less, and less impressive. In the words of the Hulk: Puny God...Are you aware this is the same challenge Creationists pose to those who agree with evolution? Where are all the fossils of all the missing links?
I'm not aware of the theory of a flood that covered the entire Middle East. Maybe you can point me towards it.
If the stories originated during the possible formation of the Black Sea, then logically bones and fossils are buried beneath the sea. As far as I am aware, there have not been excavations beneath this sea, although there have been reports of indications that a lake once existed where the Black Sea now is.
Yup, it took quite a bit of research on language and culture to get to the bottom of the questions that arise from the story of Noah's Ark. After all this, I tend to believe the story has its roots in reality, but declaring the story completely false works, too. It saves having to discuss it again...or, does it?Ha, you had to jump through quite a few hoops, there. Personally, when I have to toss out all the facts of a story and the language in order to make it true, I just decide it's false.
Well, in his defence, he's not "throwing out" the language. Rather he is retranslating the original text in a way that no Bible Scholar ever has. He apparently know more about how the Hebrew language is meant to be translated than every expert ever.
The Middle East would be the region. Or do you mean, literally, just where Noah lived? So, god destroyed, what? 50 people? And that was "all life under the heavens"? And that required a 135 meter boat to survive?!?! Shit, a good raft, with a rudder would have sufficed! And why would animals be needed to save? All the animals had to do was out run the storm to an affected area. Boy, your version of the story just gets less, and less impressive. In the words of the Hulk: Puny God...
You mean the Black Sea that was formed roughly between 250 to 50 million years ago?!?! Pretty sure that predates the Yaweh cult.
You envision an event that formed a geological structure that existed over a hundred million years before man even walked the Earth. Your vision is not a possibility.The Middle East would be the region. Or do you mean, literally, just where Noah lived? So, god destroyed, what? 50 people? And that was "all life under the heavens"? And that required a 135 meter boat to survive?!?! Shit, a good raft, with a rudder would have sufficed! And why would animals be needed to save? All the animals had to do was out run the storm to an affected area. Boy, your version of the story just gets less, and less impressive. In the words of the Hulk: Puny God...
Currently, the Middle East is said to be comprised of the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan. I haven't read of a theory that Noah's flood covered all this territory. If you have, I would sure like being pointed to that source.
The heavens can indicate the area directly above an area. Right now, in my area, the heavens are covered with clouds. However, the heavens fifty miles away are clear. The heavens can also be used to cover an area that includes the entire galaxy. Hey! Maybe every person in our galaxy died in Noah's flood! Is that how you interpret your modern English translation of the Bible?
"My" version of the story? I envision an event that forms the Black Sea, and you then picture people and animals surviving on a raft during an event of this magnitude. Are you sure you don't believe in God?
The "Black Sea are" was already the Black Fucking Sea six or seven thousand years ago! I assume that your premise is that Noah, and...whoever...lived in the basin of the Black Sea, and that "The Flood" created the Black Sea. The Black Sea already existed as the Black Sea at that time. The Black Sea, as the Black Sea, is, at least, 50 million years old. There have been geological studies of the Black Sea. That's how we know how old it is:You mean the Black Sea that was formed roughly between 250 to 50 million years ago?!?! Pretty sure that predates the Yaweh cult.
I'm speaking of an event that took place in the Black Sea area an estimated six or seven thousand years ago.
You envision an event that formed a geological structure that existed over a hundred million years before man even walked the Earth. Your vision is not a possibility.
The "Black Sea are" was already the Black Fucking Sea six or seven thousand years ago! I assume that your premise is that Noah, and...whoever...lived in the basin of the Black Sea, and that "The Flood" created the Black Sea. The Black Sea already existed as the Black Sea at that time. The Black Sea, as the Black Sea, is, at least, 50 million years old. There have been geological studies of the Black Sea. That's how we know how old it is:
The geologic history of the Black Sea is not fully known, but it seems to be a residual basin of the ancient Tethys Sea, dating roughly from 250 to 50 million years ago. The present form of the sea probably emerged at the end of the Paleocene Epoch (about 55 million years ago), when structural upheavals in Anatolia split off the Caspian basin from the Mediterranean. The newly created Black Sea basin became gradually isolated from the ocean, and its salinity was reduced; at that time the Crimean Peninsula and the Caucasus probably were islands.
Okay, so you're not talking about the formation of the Black Sea. You're referring to the hypothetical breaching of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean. The problem is, you are apparently unfamiliar with the most recent research on the subject. As of 2009, the evidence indicated that, if it happened at all, it would have bee around 7400 BCE - still predating Noah, and most of the Yaweh cult. Further, it has been described as "mild flooding". Hardly the catastrophe described in the Bible.The "Black Sea are" was already the Black Fucking Sea six or seven thousand years ago! I assume that your premise is that Noah, and...whoever...lived in the basin of the Black Sea, and that "The Flood" created the Black Sea. The Black Sea already existed as the Black Sea at that time. The Black Sea, as the Black Sea, is, at least, 50 million years old. There have been geological studies of the Black Sea. That's how we know how old it is:
The geologic history of the Black Sea is not fully known, but it seems to be a residual basin of the ancient Tethys Sea, dating roughly from 250 to 50 million years ago. The present form of the sea probably emerged at the end of the Paleocene Epoch (about 55 million years ago), when structural upheavals in Anatolia split off the Caspian basin from the Mediterranean. The newly created Black Sea basin became gradually isolated from the ocean, and its salinity was reduced; at that time the Crimean Peninsula and the Caucasus probably were islands.
Again...
You're not listening. I'm speaking of an event some geologists theorize may have taken place six or seven thousand years ago in that area.
Okay. How could the Black Sea have formed five, or six thousand years ago, when it was already there? What? Did it magically drain, at some point, and no one noticed?
Have you ever considered the Burckle crater and the catastrophic deluge it would have caused worldwide? I know it hasn't yet been confirmed yet but it certainly would explain everything including the several hundred flood myths from every continent around the world about a month long deluge of torrential rain from the sky which can not be explained by a regional breaching of the black sea.Okay, so you're not talking about the formation of the Black Sea. You're referring to the hypothetical breaching of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean. The problem is, you are apparently unfamiliar with the most recent research on the subject. As of 3009, the evidence indicated that, if it happened at all, it would have bee around 7400 BCE - still predating Noah, and most of the Yaweh cult. Further, it has been described as "mild flooding". Hardly the catastrophe described in the Bible.The "Black Sea are" was already the Black Fucking Sea six or seven thousand years ago! I assume that your premise is that Noah, and...whoever...lived in the basin of the Black Sea, and that "The Flood" created the Black Sea. The Black Sea already existed as the Black Sea at that time. The Black Sea, as the Black Sea, is, at least, 50 million years old. There have been geological studies of the Black Sea. That's how we know how old it is:
The geologic history of the Black Sea is not fully known, but it seems to be a residual basin of the ancient Tethys Sea, dating roughly from 250 to 50 million years ago. The present form of the sea probably emerged at the end of the Paleocene Epoch (about 55 million years ago), when structural upheavals in Anatolia split off the Caspian basin from the Mediterranean. The newly created Black Sea basin became gradually isolated from the ocean, and its salinity was reduced; at that time the Crimean Peninsula and the Caucasus probably were islands.
Again...
You're not listening. I'm speaking of an event some geologists theorize may have taken place six or seven thousand years ago in that area.
When I realised to what you were referring I deleted that post and replaced it:Okay. How could the Black Sea have formed five, or six thousand years ago, when it was already there? What? Did it magically drain, at some point, and no one noticed?
You.are.not.listening.
Some theorize that the Black Sea region may have been changed six or seven thousand years ago with a breach in the straight that separates it from the Mediterranean. This then caused substantial flooding in the region and land that was once agricultural is no underwater. If this theory proves out (and it may not) could it be the event behind the Noah and Gilgamesh stories?
Why get so hysterical over such a simple theory currently being investigated by scientists? There is another theory about a flood in the Tigris-Euphrates area, that if a flood hit in a specific area, it would indeed appear that the earth was covered in water. That, too, is an interesting theory, but again it is nothing over which to throw a frenzied fit.
In case you have forgotten, you don't believe in God and therefore you don't believe any story in the Bible is inspired by God. That's fine by me.
And you are not talking about a theory, you are talking about a hypothesis. There is a rather significant difference, when speaking scientifically. One last note. You do realise that the entire Biblical flood story was nothing more than a plagiarised retelling of the Sumarian/Babylonian myth of Utnapishtim, right? More likely, the original version of the story was founded on the floods in the Fertile Crescent, e.g., the flood of 3200 B.C.E, which were not nearly as catastrophic as the Biblical flood story purports, and was really just an etiological attempt to explain a natural event.Okay, so you're not talking about the formation of the Black Sea. You're referring to the hypothetical breaching of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean. The problem is, you are apparently unfamiliar with the most recent research on the subject. As of 2009, the evidence indicated that, if it happened at all, it would have bee around 7400 BCE - still predating Noah, and most of the Yaweh cult. Further, it has been described as "mild flooding". Hardly the catastrophe described in the Bible.
You said you believed in the great flood. Don't equivocate. You either believe, or you do not. The bible clearly says it was worldwide.
If you believe there was "a flood, one time", than say so. Though, I dont find such a thing worth noting. Literally every fact presented in the great flood story (Which delineates it from other historical floods) is demonstrably false.
Let's go back six or seven thousand years--perhaps even longer. How did people of that time envision the earth? The Hebrew language of the time paints a picture of a flood that covered the earth (not the planet) as far as the eye could see. It mentions rain, it mentions water also coming from the earth. It was an event unlike any other. The flood story existed long before it was written down in Hebrew.
The storytellers in both Gilgamesh and Noah say that before the flood began, humans were behaving badly, that they were loud and obnoxious. We are told in both accounts that God wanted mankind to survive. In both accounts one good man was chosen to insure the survival of the human race.
As to where the flood occurred, as of yet, no one agrees. One interesting theory hypothesizes that the Black Sea was once a fresh water lake which was surrounded by agriculture, that a breach occurred and water from the Mediterranean poured into this area creating the Black Sea.
Do I believe a great flood happened? Absolutely. But I try to see it through the eyes of ancient man and the original Hebrew, not through the eyes of modern man speaking English. Modern man sees the earth much differently than did ancient man. Modern man tries to communicate such events with facts, whereas ancient man told stories. Ancient man tells a story of God preserving mankind despite its imperfections. Modern atheists enjoy picturing God as destroyer.
When I realised to what you were referring I deleted that post and replaced it:Okay. How could the Black Sea have formed five, or six thousand years ago, when it was already there? What? Did it magically drain, at some point, and no one noticed?
You.are.not.listening.
Some theorize that the Black Sea region may have been changed six or seven thousand years ago with a breach in the straight that separates it from the Mediterranean. This then caused substantial flooding in the region and land that was once agricultural is no underwater. If this theory proves out (and it may not) could it be the event behind the Noah and Gilgamesh stories?
Why get so hysterical over such a simple theory currently being investigated by scientists? There is another theory about a flood in the Tigris-Euphrates area, that if a flood hit in a specific area, it would indeed appear that the earth was covered in water. That, too, is an interesting theory, but again it is nothing over which to throw a frenzied fit.
In case you have forgotten, you don't believe in God and therefore you don't believe any story in the Bible is inspired by God. That's fine by me.
And you are not talking about a theory, you are talking about a hypothesis. There is a rather significant difference, when speaking scientifically. One last note. You do realise that the entire Biblical flood story was nothing more than a plagiarised retelling of the Sumarian/Babylonian myth of Utnapishtim, right? More likely, the original version of the story was founded on the floods in the Fertile Crescent, e.g., the flood of 3200 B.C.E, which were not nearly as catastrophic as the Biblical flood story purports, and was really just an etiological attempt to explain a natural event.Okay, so you're not talking about the formation of the Black Sea. You're referring to the hypothetical breaching of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean. The problem is, you are apparently unfamiliar with the most recent research on the subject. As of 2009, the evidence indicated that, if it happened at all, it would have bee around 7400 BCE - still predating Noah, and most of the Yaweh cult. Further, it has been described as "mild flooding". Hardly the catastrophe described in the Bible.
