Noah and his boat -

[mudwhistle]

I used to get into arguments with friends over what in the Bible must be taken literally. They said everything. I said that even Jesus said some of his stories were fables meant to tell a moral story, not that it actually happened. Some would say he was lying. Well, no. He was telling a story to make it easier for his philosophy to be understood by applying it to realistic situations.

The Bible was about the linage of Jesus Christ. Back in those days people didn't get around much, so if some other family was spared from the flood in another part of the world they wouldn't know it.

 

[Esmeralda]

Anyone here hear of Biblical Archaeology? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with Bible Thumpers.

I've heard of it. There's a magazine, I think it's called Biblical Archaeology Review. They look for achaeology that may verify Bible stories. Some of the places mentioned in the Bible, etc.

 

[PostmodernProph]

the same folks who demand the flood story be understood only literally are the one's who also would insist there have to be only a dozen generations between Adam and Noah......even if every generation had twenty children and all but one of them were women how many people did God have to drown if he left eight alive?.....

here's a clue....if you are going to insist the Bible must be interpreted 100% literally he would only have needed to flood a single valley to get everyone......

How is this answering my question?

Why do all ancient myths in that region have a flood story? How did they even know what a flood was?

??????.....seriously?......I would think the answer is obvious.......everyone's ancestor survived the flood in a big boat filled with animals......why wouldn't they have a flood story?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I used to get into arguments with friends over what in the Bible must be taken literally. They said everything. I said that even Jesus said some of his stories were fables meant to tell a moral story, not that it actually happened. Some would say he was lying. Well, no. He was telling a story to make it easier for his philosophy to be understood by applying it to realistic situations.

The Bible was about the linage of Jesus Christ. Back in those days people didn't get around much, so if some other family was spared from the flood in another part of the world they wouldn't know it.

next time ask them if the verse that says the cattle on a thousand hills sing the praises of the Lord meant that the cattle on hill #1001 were ungrateful..........

 

[daws101]

the term cover the earth in water in the biblical context means THE WHOLE EARTH INCLUDING THE HIMALAYAS there would be no exceptions.

is that what you, the Rev Phelps and the other literalists insist on?.......

AS always you mistake what fundamentalists believe for my opinion...

 

[daws101]

I used to get into arguments with friends over what in the Bible must be taken literally. They said everything. I said that even Jesus said some of his stories were fables meant to tell a moral story, not that it actually happened. Some would say he was lying. Well, no. He was telling a story to make it easier for his philosophy to be understood by applying it to realistic situations.

The Bible was about the linage of Jesus Christ. Back in those days people didn't get around much, so if some other family was spared from the flood in another part of the world they wouldn't know it.

next time ask them if the verse that says the cattle on a thousand hills sing the praises of the Lord meant that the cattle on hill #1001 were ungrateful..........

was the word cattle a euphemism for believers or if taken literally bovines?

 

[mamooth]

Why do all ancient myths in that region have a flood story? How did they even know what a flood was?

Because they lived in river valleys, and rivers flood.

Why did you even think that was a sensible question?

 

[MrMax]

I used to get into arguments with friends over what in the Bible must be taken literally. They said everything. I said that even Jesus said some of his stories were fables meant to tell a moral story, not that it actually happened. Some would say he was lying. Well, no. He was telling a story to make it easier for his philosophy to be understood by applying it to realistic situations.

The Bible was about the linage of Jesus Christ. Back in those days people didn't get around much, so if some other family was spared from the flood in another part of the world they wouldn't know it.

Actually, nothing Jesus said was ever written down. What is attributed to Jesus was written several generations after Jesus died.

 

[daws101]

Why do all ancient myths in that region have a flood story? How did they even know what a flood was?

Because they lived in river valleys, and rivers flood.

Why did you even think that was a sensible question?

the idea that people go to where the water is never occurs to some.

 

[mamooth]

I've read that the Noah movie portrays Noah as an ecofreak and animal rights activist, hence the movie has been declared by some to be a liberal perversion of the Bible.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/24/atheist-noah-director-brags-film-least-biblical-bi/

 

[daws101]

I've read that the Noah movie portrays Noah as an ecofreak and animal rights activist, hence the movie has been declared by some to be a liberal perversion of the Bible.

by other as not being "faithful "to the original made up story...

 

[MrMax]

The movie was banned in some camel countries for depicting a prophet. Not sure what they'll do when it gets to satellite TV.

 

[mudwhistle]

The movie was banned in some camel countries for depicting a prophet. Not sure what they'll do when it gets to satellite TV.

The story is pretty dull, so using a little artistic-license should help the plot.

 

[mudwhistle]

I used to get into arguments with friends over what in the Bible must be taken literally. They said everything. I said that even Jesus said some of his stories were fables meant to tell a moral story, not that it actually happened. Some would say he was lying. Well, no. He was telling a story to make it easier for his philosophy to be understood by applying it to realistic situations.

The Bible was about the linage of Jesus Christ. Back in those days people didn't get around much, so if some other family was spared from the flood in another part of the world they wouldn't know it.

Actually, nothing Jesus said was ever written down. What is attributed to Jesus was written several generations after Jesus died.

The New Testament was mostly written by his disciples after his crucifixion. Many of them were dead not long afterwards. It has been translated numerous times. Some of the meaning may have been lost.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Danged inconvenient facts.

Anyone seen the movie?

A great volkergadanken version of a universal elementargedanken myth.


Lol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I used to get into arguments with friends over what in the Bible must be taken literally. They said everything. I said that even Jesus said some of his stories were fables meant to tell a moral story, not that it actually happened. Some would say he was lying. Well, no. He was telling a story to make it easier for his philosophy to be understood by applying it to realistic situations.

The Bible was about the linage of Jesus Christ. Back in those days people didn't get around much, so if some other family was spared from the flood in another part of the world they wouldn't know it.

Actually, nothing Jesus said was ever written down. What is attributed to Jesus was written several generations after Jesus died.

The New Testament was mostly written by his disciples after his crucifixion. Many of them were dead not long afterwards. It has been translated numerous times. Some of the meaning may have been lost.

They were "written" by the disciples? Really? Says who?

Where do we see them defending their versions/gospels against their contempories? Do you know?
[MENTION=20102]mudwhistle[/MENTION] or are they gospels 'attributed' ??

 

[MrMax]

So did Noah have any plants on his boat? Because after 40 days under water, everything would have died.

 

[GISMYS]

So did Noah have any plants on his boat? Because after 40 days under water, everything would have died.

Why is it you tards cannot think??? have you never seen a flood?There would have been rafts of trees, brush, grass, tossed by waves mabe 10 or more feet high and most likely miles long!!!

 

[MrMax]

So did Noah have any plants on his boat? Because after 40 days under water, everything would have died.

Why is it you tards cannot think??? have you never seen a flood?There would have been rafts of trees, brush, grass, tossed by waves mabe 10 or more feet high and most likely miles long!!!

Sure the aquatic plants would survive, not redwoods...

 

[GISMYS]

So did Noah have any plants on his boat? Because after 40 days under water, everything would have died.

Why is it you tards cannot think??? have you never seen a flood?There would have been rafts of trees, brush, grass, tossed by waves mabe 10 or more feet high and most likely miles long!!!

Sure the aquatic plants would survive, not redwoods...

Again silly non-thinker!!! in a huge flood there would huge rafts of floating trees,tree seeds brush,grass and other trash, those floating rafts would be tossed by waves and most likely be many feet high and miles long covered by millions of insects,bugs and such.