Question about Noah.

[Hollie]

Isn't it frustrating that in the 21st century we still have to fight this battle with fundamentalist believers in ancient myth and fable? And no we can't just ignore them because they want to codify their biblical "morality" in the laws of the land. Abortion disturbs us all but they want to make it criminal because a "soul" enters the diploid cell at fertilization. Same reason to outlaw stem cell research. They want laws on the books controlling sexual behavior because of some ancient scribe's notion of propriety. Same for marriage laws. They want to teach a creation myth along side, or instead of real science. The list of why we have to keep fighting this battle goes on and on even though such childish ideas should have been put aside by the human race, oh say at least around the time of Galileo Galilei in the 16th century. It's so frustrating.

Those battles aren't fought, won or lost on discussion forums.

In part, they are.

Another sidestep.

Why did the Egyptians, and the Maya never have a record of the biblical flood?

????.....The Egyptian creation myth is said to have its beginning when the people watched the dark waters of the Nile flood the land. - See more at: The Egyptian Creation Myth The Birth Of The Earth

Flood

• These new humans did not last long. Because they did not have souls or minds, they did not praise Heart of Sky as had been hoped. Also, humanity quickly forgot the source of their creation. The creator was angered by this and sent floods to destroy what they believed to be another failed attempt at creating the race of men.

Similarity to Other Myths

• The Mayan flood myth is very similar to other flood myths. Many cultures tell of the gods' unhappiness with their first attempt at creating humanity and the destruction of all but a few of the new creations by a world wide flood.

Read more : Mayan Indian Flood Myth eHow

The Nile Delta is the result of seasonal flooding.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth The Story of the Nile

There's no magical or supernatural acts of any gawds taking place.

 

[Ellipsis]

So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.

The bible says "whole earth" which comes from the Hebrew "kol erets" which means local area or region unless a specific place is named immediately before "kol erets". There are instances in the bible where "kol erets" is referring to the entire planet and it names the planet right before "kol erets" or uses different wording. This is not the case with the flood. With the flood, the bible says the whole region was under water, which is perfectly possible given that the region in question is subject to frequint flooding even in modern times.

 

[Taz]

OK, so you don't believe in the bible.

yes.....I do.....I just don't believe in YOU......

It was a worldwide flood, which you don't believe in. So you don't believe the bible.

I don't believe the Bible tells us Mt. Everest was inundated.....that does not mean I don't believe the Bible.....I just don't believe your interpretations of it.....

So you don't believe this: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. " ?

 

[Ellipsis]

The Nile Delta is the result of seasonal flooding.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth The Story of the Nile

There's no magical or supernatural acts of any gawds taking place.

How would a bronze-age civilization who had no sciences know that?

 

[Hollie]

So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.

The bible says "whole earth" which comes from the Hebrew "kol erets" which means local area or region unless a specific place is named immediately before "kol erets". There are instances in the bible where "kol erets" is referring to the entire planet and it names the planet right before "kol erets" or uses different wording. This is not the case with the flood. With the flood, the bible says the whole region was under water, which is perfectly possible given that the region in question is subject to frequint flooding even in modern times.

Are you editing newly revised versions of the various bibles?

If "whole earth" doesn't mean "whole earth" then why would the gawds allow such confusion.

And you are incorrect, "kol erets" is from the Latin meaning "the gawds have played a cruel joke on you".

 

[Hollie]

The Nile Delta is the result of seasonal flooding.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth The Story of the Nile

There's no magical or supernatural acts of any gawds taking place.

How would a bronze-age civilization who had no sciences know that?

Because the flooding of the Nile was a seasonal event.

 

[Ellipsis]

Are you editing newly revised versions of the various bibles?

I'm disregarding them, for the most part. You should too. There are hundreds if not thousands of versions of the flood story from all over the world and not one of them is perfectly literally accurate. The majority of them say it was a regional event, and the bible says it was a regional event.

If "whole earth" doesn't mean "whole earth" then why would the gawds allow such confusion.

For the same reason god allows rape and murder, I suppose, whatever that reason may be.

And you are incorrect, "kol erets" is from the Latin meaning "the gawds have played a cruel joke on you".

Not true: The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

 

[Taz]

Are you editing newly revised versions of the various bibles?

I'm disregarding them, for the most part. You should too. There are hundreds if not thousands of versions of the flood story from all over the world and not one of them is perfectly literally accurate. The majority of them say it was a regional event, and the bible says it was a regional event.

If "whole earth" doesn't mean "whole earth" then why would the gawds allow such confusion.

For the same reason god allows rape and murder, I suppose, whatever that reason may be.

And you are incorrect, "kol erets" is from the Latin meaning "the gawds have played a cruel joke on you".

Not true: The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

This is what the bible says:
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "

 

[Ellipsis]

This is what the bible says:
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "

Exactly. Nowhere in what you quoted did it say the entire planet. It just says 'earth', which means land, dirt. The people of Noah's time had no concept of what a planet even is to then make a story about one. Psalms 104;9 verifies that the flood was not global. The planet was completely covered in water only once, before any dry land first appeared millions of years ago.

 

[Taz]

This is what the bible says:
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "

Exactly. Nowhere in what you quoted did it say the entire planet. It just says 'earth', which means land, dirt. The people of Noah's time had no concept of what a planet even is to then make a story about one. Psalms 104;9 verifies that the flood was not global. The planet was completely covered in water only once, before any dry land first appeared millions of years ago.

Geez, you're fucking dense. God's going to destroy all the land and dirt and all living, breathing things on it. That means the entire planet. It couldn't be any clearer.

 

[Hollie]

This is what the bible says:
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "

Exactly. Nowhere in what you quoted did it say the entire planet. It just says 'earth', which means land, dirt. The people of Noah's time had no concept of what a planet even is to then make a story about one. Psalms 104;9 verifies that the flood was not global. The planet was completely covered in water only once, before any dry land first appeared millions of years ago.

Are the gawds aware that you are re-writing the bibles?

 

[Ellipsis]

This is what the bible says:
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "

Exactly. Nowhere in what you quoted did it say the entire planet. It just says 'earth', which means land, dirt. The people of Noah's time had no concept of what a planet even is to then make a story about one. Psalms 104;9 verifies that the flood was not global. The planet was completely covered in water only once, before any dry land first appeared millions of years ago.

Geez, you're fucking dense. God's going to destroy all the land and dirt and all living, breathing things on it. That means the entire planet. It couldn't be any clearer.

Psalms 104;9 says it wasn't a global event, so if you're taking the bible at face value then it was not a global event, and if you're not taking the bible at face value then it doesn't matter the bible says at all.

 

[Ellipsis]

Are the gawds aware that you are re-writing the bibles?

I don't know what a "gawd" is but I haven't rewritten anything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There was no 'Noah,' no 'flood,' no 'ark' – it's all fantasy and fable, myths and legends; indeed, the bible flood myth was clearly appropriated from Gilgamesh.

 

[the_human_being]

I have already addressed the cultures who have flood tales and so has Postmodern. addressed them. No one said anything about the Vikings having animals on board. Your article made a wild uneducated and totally asinine claim that wood was not a good product for boat building when most of the world was explored and settle by people sailing wooden boats. When I see something totally stupid like that, I dismiss the whole thesis.

Other cultures gave flood tales.

Here's another opportunity not to sidestep the problem of other cultures having no record of a global flood that coincided with the biblical Ark tale.

Why did the Egyptians not record a global flood?

I think missed the part of the article I linked that identified the absurdity of a wooden boat as described in the Ark tale. From the link:

"..... Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

I gave you many examples of cultures that spoke of a global flood. I don't know why the Egyptians either did or didn't. The point is that many did.

As far a wooden ship taking heavy seas, even Columbus rode out a hurricane losing the Pinta. Of course wooden ships can take heavy seas. Who knows really whether the ark utilized any metal or not. Tubal Cain was a worker in brass and other metals. There was certainly some knowledge of working with metals long before Noah built the ark.

We have no factual data that Noah built an Ark.

Other than biblical tales and fables, what evidence is there of Noah's Ark?

From my linked article:

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

• the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
• the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
• why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
• why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
• why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
• how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
• why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
• why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
• why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
• why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
• why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

A lot of what you post here and assume to be from this earth age were clearly from the first earth age. There is ONE world. We are living in the second earth age, some say the third for they count the time from the Bible's creation week to Noah as a second earth age and the time from Noah to now as a third earth age. It makes little difference. I simply count two with the Bible's creation week being the same one as this one in which we live because not everyone was destroyed, Noah and his family (8) crossed over. This present earth age is some 6,000 years in existence. The previous earth age, when the earth was originally created was according to science, some 4.5 billion years ago. I say it was even before that.

Who cares about pollen? Your own DNA carries a digital signature that is so complicated and so unique that it had to be of intelligent design.

Where did you get this conception of multiple earth ages?

Similarly, where did you get the conception that DNA is so complicated it had to be of "intelligent design". That's boilerplate christan fundamentalism and Is totally unsupported.

Surely even you have heard of "timelines". We establish timelines for many things. The Bronze Age is a timeline, the Iron Age is a timeline. It's common practice.

This is not my original link to the DNA thing I previously posted but it will serve the same purpose. Intelligent Design

 

[the_human_being]

I have already addressed the cultures who have flood tales and so has Postmodern. addressed them. No one said anything about the Vikings having animals on board. Your article made a wild uneducated and totally asinine claim that wood was not a good product for boat building when most of the world was explored and settle by people sailing wooden boats. When I see something totally stupid like that, I dismiss the whole thesis.

Other cultures gave flood tales.

Here's another opportunity not to sidestep the problem of other cultures having no record of a global flood that coincided with the biblical Ark tale.

Why did the Egyptians not record a global flood?

I think missed the part of the article I linked that identified the absurdity of a wooden boat as described in the Ark tale. From the link:

"..... Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

I gave you many examples of cultures that spoke of a global flood. I don't know why the Egyptians either did or didn't. The point is that many did.

As far a wooden ship taking heavy seas, even Columbus rode out a hurricane losing the Pinta. Of course wooden ships can take heavy seas. Who knows really whether the ark utilized any metal or not. Tubal Cain was a worker in brass and other metals. There was certainly some knowledge of working with metals long before Noah built the ark.

Another sidestep.

Why did the Egyptians, and the Maya never have a record of the biblical flood?

Holly, I really don't care why they didn't. Many others did. Remember the Epic of Gilgamesh? That one is well documented. That came from the Mesopotamia Valley and follows the Biblical account amazingly close.

You don't care why the Egyptians, and the Maya never had a record of the biblical flood? That's remarkable. How is it that there is archeological data from many civilizations that somehow survived a global flood? How do you reconcile that?

Well, I really don't know what to tell you except that I truly really could care less. Your argument falls on sand is why I don't care.

Wikipedia says the Mayan Civilization (that's a joke) came about around 2000 BC. That means that civilization (same joke) came about some 300 years after the flood. We created the United States in less time.

Your Egyptians control their own history. The Egyptians base their history on chronology of their pharaohs or kings. They have always gotten them confused since many of them had the same name and they had so many. They made everybody a kind. I believe even Job was made a king in Egypt. They had greater kings and lesser kings. If you owned three camels you were a greater king. Two camels got you a lesser kingship.

The Mayans do tend to prove the Chaos Theory of Evolution. They became heathens. They got into cannibalism and the priests skinned out people and dressed themselves in the skins. They finally about died out. They probably got hold of some bad hamburger.

All of these people hated God. The reason given for building the Tower of Babel was that they didn't trust God's promise not to send another flood so they built the Tower to escape another flood. Both the Egyptians and the Mayans began to build pyramids again in defiance of God and to worship other Gods including the sun.

I hope this answers your question as to why I'm really not concerned with the Egyptians and the Mayans. Civilization began again at the Tower of Babel in present day Iraq. Egypt is not all that far away. The Bible gives a fairly clear detail of how the people dispersed.

 

[the_human_being]

What ocean? Give me some argument. I have no argument that at the time of the flood Everest wasn't nearly as high as it is now. I totally agree. Even though it was not as high it still had a top to it. That same top has only gotten pushed upward. Show me something that says Everest was once at the bottom of some ocean and please name that ocean.

If the earth had a flat surface now with the depths of the ocean being only a few feet deep, then the water in the oceans would cover the earth. That is a scientific fact.

My Grand Canyon story is supported not only by fact but by common sense. That river never flowed uphill.

Actually, the Bible somewhat supports the idea that this earth has endured two global floods in its history.

What "facts" support your Grand Canyon theory?

Why don't you simply read the post? Ever hear of common sense? Some folks have it. Do rivers flow uphill? Does slow erosion produce sharp cliffs? Where is the Colorado River delta? These are common sense items that must be answered.

Show me your argument. I've shown you mine.

Show us links to real scientist who believe this.

Dispute what I've posted first. I'm not here to do your bidding.

I can't dispute made up shit. Post a link to a real source so we know that this isn't just one of your fantasies, and so I'll have something to dispute.

Actually, whether you believe it or not concerns me not.

 

[the_human_being]

So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.

The bible says "whole earth" which comes from the Hebrew "kol erets" which means local area or region unless a specific place is named immediately before "kol erets". There are instances in the bible where "kol erets" is referring to the entire planet and it names the planet right before "kol erets" or uses different wording. This is not the case with the flood. With the flood, the bible says the whole region was under water, which is perfectly possible given that the region in question is subject to frequint flooding even in modern times.

Unless we simply apply common sense.

Common sense tells me that were the flood simply a local thing, the people could have simply continued to walk away from the rising water until they escaped it up a mountain or upon reaching an area that was not to be flooded.

Common sense also tells me that there would have been no need for any birds to be taken on board the ark. The birds could have simply flow to an area beyond the flood. The animals also could have moved to an area outside the flood line.

 

[the_human_being]

I gave you many examples of cultures that spoke of a global flood. I don't know why the Egyptians either did or didn't. The point is that many did.

As far a wooden ship taking heavy seas, even Columbus rode out a hurricane losing the Pinta. Of course wooden ships can take heavy seas. Who knows really whether the ark utilized any metal or not. Tubal Cain was a worker in brass and other metals. There was certainly some knowledge of working with metals long before Noah built the ark.

Another sidestep.

Why did the Egyptians, and the Maya never have a record of the biblical flood?

Holly, I really don't care why they didn't. Many others did. Remember the Epic of Gilgamesh? That one is well documented. That came from the Mesopotamia Valley and follows the Biblical account amazingly close.

You don't care why the Egyptians, and the Maya never had a record of the biblical flood? That's remarkable. How is it that there is archeological data from many civilizations that somehow survived a global flood? How do you reconcile that?

Do the Philadelphians have a flood story? How about New Yorkers? No, I have stated before, I really don't care.

That makes no sense.

I can understand that you don't care because to actually address the contradiction would be devastating to the biblical tales. It's just a fact that a great many cultures existed at the time of the biblical flood and they managed, somehow, to have survived that event.

Doesn't accuracy and integrity cause you any concern regarding some grossly contradictory recordings of history?

LOL!! There are tons of things that don't make sense to you Hollie.

 

[Ellipsis]

Unless we simply apply common sense.

Common sense tells me that were the flood simply a local thing, the people could have simply continued to walk away from the rising water until they escaped it up a mountain or upon reaching an area that was not to be flooded.

Common sense also tells me that there would have been no need for any birds to be taken on board the ark. The birds could have simply flow to an area beyond the flood. The animals also could have moved to an area outside the flood line.

Common sense says their lings would have exploded from the resulting atmospheric pressure if the water had threatened the mountains.