Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
543

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, you both make valid points. Remember, I am a believer in Noah’s Ark. I just doubt it will ever be found or is still intact. It really doesn’t matter. Someone that says they need to see Noah’s Ark to believe in God or the Bible would doubtfully actually change their mind after seeing it.[/quote]

Oh poppeycock. You thumpers always thump to the same drum. You want the critical thinking among us to have blind faith in a book put together by imperfect humans, under a corrupted process, with a legion of verified corrupted transliterations that were translated with the aim of fitting dogma rather than accuracy, and that was predated by other older religions that told many of the same stories.

If the argument is always going to be, “don’t look too closely”, “don’t subject it to examination and question” - instead, accept it on “blind faith”, I think to many critical thinking people, this does’t pass muster. In fact, I find most of the religious among us, have never studied the history of the bible, how it was constructed, or have even heard let alone considered some of the scholarly criticisms against it.

In fact, I find that most religious people, accept their brand of dogma, whether it be Islam, Christianity, etc., on “blind faith”. I do however, respect those that have done a critical analysis and still come away believing. At least they did some critical thinking along the way.

However, if such an ark were indeed found, and it was dated to the proper time period, and it was of the same size described in the Bible, and it contained evidence of two of every animal, etc etc etc., it would only give veracity to a deluge story that already predated the bible. The ark is hardly a starting point to make converts.

“Blind faith” - don’t ask me to have it. Don’t ask me to believe that the Muslims are wrong in their equal faith. Don’t ask me to believe that the Buddhists are wrong in their faith. Don’t ask me to believe that the Jews have it wrong. Don’t ask me to believe, blindly, that EVERYONE EXCEPT the Christians of this world have God figured out. Don’t ask me to believe that a loving perfect God has condemned all those born in a different culture who were raised under an different but equal and perhaps a culturally inescapable dogma. I’m not buying it. So sell it somewhere else.

545

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, you both make valid points. Remember, I am a believer in Noah’s Ark. I just doubt it will ever be found or is still intact. It really doesn’t matter. Someone that says they need to see Noah’s Ark to believe in God or the Bible would doubtfully actually change their mind after seeing it.[/quote]

Oh poppeycock. You thumpers always thump to the same drum. You want the critical thinking among us to have blind faith in a book put together by imperfect humans, under a corrupted process, with a legion of verified corrupted transliterations that were translated with the aim of fitting dogma rather than accuracy, and that was predated by other older religions that told many of the same stories.

If the argument is always going to be, “don’t look too closely”, “don’t subject it to examination and question” - instead, accept it on “blind faith”, I think to many critical thinking people, this does’t pass muster. In fact, I find most of the religious among us, have never studied the history of the bible, how it was constructed, or have even heard let alone considered some of the scholarly criticisms against it.

In fact, I find that most religious people, accept their brand of dogma, whether it be Islam, Christianity, etc., on “blind faith”. I do however, respect those that have done a critical analysis and still come away believing. At least they did some critical thinking along the way.

However, if such an ark were indeed found, and it was dated to the proper time period, and it was of the same size described in the Bible, and it contained evidence of two of every animal, etc etc etc., it would only give veracity to a deluge story that already predated the bible. The ark is hardly a starting point to make converts.

“Blind faith” - don’t ask me to have it. Don’t ask me to believe that the Muslims are wrong in their equal faith. Don’t ask me to believe that the Buddhists are wrong in their faith. Don’t ask me to believe that the Jews have it wrong. Don’t ask me to believe, blindly, that EVERYONE EXCEPT the Christians of this world have God figured out. Don’t ask me to believe that a loving perfect God has condemned all those born in a different culture who were raised under an different but equal and perhaps a culturally inescapable dogma. I’m not buying it. So sell it somewhere else.[/quote]

That is your choice. You have Free Will. If anyone tells you they have God figured out then they do not speak the truth. Look at how many people interpret the Bible differently.

546

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Man, proud man, drest in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he’s most assured, glassy essence, like an angry ape, plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, as make the angels weep. [/quote]

I knew it would twist your knickers and give you a wedgie in particular…even as I wrote it.

But allow me to retort:

I am not proud, but rather humble. I have no authority that is real. I am not assured of anything - even that which I witness with my own senses. We are all but mere higher thinking apes, and clearly behave as such. I know of no trick I could play upon or before heaven. And if the angels do indeed weep for me, they weep for every non-christian on earth and I am therefore in good company.

547

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Man, proud man, drest in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he’s most assured, glassy essence, like an angry ape, plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, as make the angels weep. [/quote]

I knew it would twist your knickers and give you a wedgie in particular…even as I wrote it.

But allow me to retort:

I am not proud, but rather humble. I have no authority that is real. I am not assured of anything - even that which I witness with my own senses. We are all but mere higher thinking apes, and clearly behave as such. I know of no trick I could play upon or before heaven. And if the angels do indeed weep for me, they weep for every non-christian on earth and I am therefore in good company. [/quote]

I never said anything about taking “blind faith.” Yes, I do study the history of the Bible and how it was put together. Have you? For all these mistranslations and mistakes that are supposedly in the Bible can you cite any and how they changed the meaning of the passage? Are you an expert on the Council of Nicea? Do you know what specific criteria was used to keep books in or omit books from the Bible? How about the Sepugnant? Do you speak fluent Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic? Have you even studied them? What specific passage in the Bible says that anyone that has never heard the word of God is going to hell? Please elaborate because I, in my “blind faith,” have never bothered to study any of these things.

I never said we shouldn’t look for evidence of the Bible. I just seriously doubt that even if every thing in the Bible that could be proved with archaeology was proved it would cause a conversion for some. Anyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, and I dislike closed minded people on both the religious and atheistic side.

548

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Man, proud man, drest in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he’s most assured, glassy essence, like an angry ape, plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, as make the angels weep. [/quote]

I knew it would twist your knickers and give you a wedgie in particular…even as I wrote it.

But allow me to retort:

I am not proud, but rather humble. I have no authority that is real. I am not assured of anything - even that which I witness with my own senses. We are all but mere higher thinking apes, and clearly behave as such. I know of no trick I could play upon or before heaven. And if the angels do indeed weep for me, they weep for every non-christian on earth and I am therefore in good company. [/quote]

I never said anything about taking “blind faith.” Yes, I do study the history of the Bible and how it was put together. Have you? For all these mistranslations and mistakes that are supposedly in the Bible can you cite any and how they changed the meaning of the passage? Are you an expert on the Council of Nicea?

Do you know what specific criteria was used to keep books in or omit books from the Bible? How about the Sepugnant? Do you speak fluent Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic? Have you even studied them? What specific passage in the Bible says that anyone that has never heard the word of God is going to hell? Please elaborate because I, in my “blind faith,” have never bothered to study any of these things.

I never said we shouldn’t look for evidence of the Bible. I just seriously doubt that even if every thing in the Bible that could be proved with archaeology was proved it would cause a conversion for some. Anyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, and I dislike closed minded people on both the religious and atheistic side.[/quote]

I’ll answer your seemingly rhetorical questions anyway :slight_smile:

  1. Yes;
  2. I’ll let you chew on Elohim for a while and in a few months, we could move on from there;
  3. See above. Absolutely changed meaning for the purposes of fitting dogma;
  4. No. Neither are you. The best we can do is read, study and consider;
  5. Yes
  6. Yes
  7. No. Neither do you. Should we then stop talking about the subject altogther? Or consider scholarly study of it?
  8. No. Neither do you. See above.
  9. I can’t quote chapter and verse and do not have the energy…but loosely speaking, isn’t the only way to the kingdom of heaven thru Christ?
  10. My mind is WIDE open…perhaps your reading comrehension is lacking. I suggest you spend less time studying ANCIENT hebrew, greek and aramaic, and more time studying MODERN english :slight_smile:

Final parting gift; a rejection of dogmatic religion is not an acceptance or prounouncement of atheism.

549

While you’re wrangling with Elohim, I want you to go back to it’s origins, and from what culture it was likely borrowed and what their belief system was which will illustrate quite nicely for you why they had such a hard time incorporating it into a monotheistic philosophy and tale - where there are numerous uses in both singular and plural and other instances of mixing up tense in the same sentence.

Have YOU really studied these things? If you have, I have a hard time believing you actually think these stories, concepts and writings are original to the alleged authors of your bible. From where did Abram (Abraham) hail? If you want to cavalierly toss about questions, I can throw about 100 or more your way.

550

just scratching the surface on elohim…by no means an all inclusive analysis…just food for thought. There is much much more.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_22.htm

551

You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.

552

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.

553

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

Well, then there is no reason debating anymore with someone as scholarly in ancient Hebrew and Old Testament as yourself then. Can you cite any of your references other than a website that itself cites no references despite one book? Also, what exactly is the background of the guy that wrote the website? I never saw it from his website. I’m guessing he is a scholar in ancient languages, ancient cultures, ancient religions, Biblical exegsis, something.

554

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

You do know that the guy who wrote that book is claiming there is another planet in our solor system? I am not saying that means is whole thesis is wrong (because that would be a logical fallacy), but I am saying I would take his so called evidence with a grain of salt.

555

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

Well, then there is no reason debating anymore with someone as scholarly in ancient Hebrew and Old Testament as yourself then. Can you cite any of your references other than a website that itself cites no references despite one book? Also, what exactly is the background of the guy that wrote the website? I never saw it from his website. I’m guessing he is a scholar in ancient languages, ancient cultures, ancient religions, Biblical exegsis, something. [/quote]

I’m not particularly fond of the website or content. He makes too many biased conclusions without providing source material for his conclusions. I did a quick google search, grabbed the first thing, to get you started. However, much of what he presents has merit and I could easily throw your “arguments” back to you and challenge you to disprove them with your own scholarship or that of someone else.

One thing is clear to me (in my personal opinion) - so you are correct, there is no need for debate - and that is, your bible was created by humans and humans alone, with no divine intervention whatsoever. The apparent difference between you and I is however, that if tomorrow I am presented with strong evidence to the contrary, I will happily consider a conversion of my beliefs.

556

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

You do know that the guy who wrote that book is claiming there is another planet in our solor system? I am not saying that means is whole thesis is wrong (because that would be a logical fallacy), but I am saying I would take his so called evidence with a grain of salt.

[/quote]

Instead of debating planets, why don’t you look at the Sumerian culture, what they believed, and examine where that culture and language intersected with the early figures in the Bible. This guy on this one web page is not making this stuff up. If you want the information and you want to take the time to consider it, it’s out there. Otherwise, you can just accept orthodoxy on faith, like the rest of the sheep.

You seriously want to get hung up on the authenticity of a planet when in our own modern time pluto has and has not been considered a planet? Instead of nit picking, why don’t you open your mind to the startling fact that this very ancient culture apparently understood there were planets, a solar system and that they apparently revolved around the sun?!

Or at least do this; give some serious time to consider what christian scholars themselves will admit about the alleged life of jesus, the various scriptures, the gospels, etc. And after that, if you still find yourself compelled to accept it all on “faith”, well at least you’ve done your homework :slight_smile: If you do the work, the answers might just shock you.

557

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

You do know that the guy who wrote that book is claiming there is another planet in our solor system? I am not saying that means is whole thesis is wrong (because that would be a logical fallacy), but I am saying I would take his so called evidence with a grain of salt.

[/quote]

Well, I always try to have logical debates over the evidence for Christianity. I was a non believer for several years, and it was my study for and search for proof that turned me back to believer. Yet if never ceases to amaze me that some can call believers naive or whatever and will believe in some psuedo-historical work like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Jesus Papers, The Jesus Seminars, or any other work that lacks real historical research or scholarship. Still though the Bible and any book claiming its accuracy is a book of lies and myths. So now I just concede the point, wish the person well, and move on.

558

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

You do know that the guy who wrote that book is claiming there is another planet in our solor system? I am not saying that means is whole thesis is wrong (because that would be a logical fallacy), but I am saying I would take his so called evidence with a grain of salt.

[/quote]

Instead of debating planets, why don’t you look at the Sumerian culture, what they believed, and examine where that culture and language intersected with the early figures in the Bible. This guy on this one web page is not making this stuff up. If you want the information and you want to take the time to consider it, it’s out there. Otherwise, you can just accept orthodoxy on faith, like the rest of the sheep.

You seriously want to get hung up on the authenticity of a planet when in our own modern time pluto has and has not been considered a planet? Instead of nit picking, why don’t you open your mind to the startling fact that this very ancient culture apparently understood there were planets, a solar system and that they apparently revolved around the sun?!

Or at least do this; give some serious time to consider what christian scholars themselves will admit about the alleged life of jesus, the various scriptures, the gospels, etc. And after that, if you still find yourself compelled to accept it all on “faith”, well at least you’ve done your homework :slight_smile: If you do the work, the answers might just shock you.
[/quote]

ah yes. assume I have not read the link nor considered any of the information brought forth.

first off my beliefs are mine, because I have put the time in to study and determine what I believe. Which I have not stated nor did I imply with my post. I just brought up that the source you are using has some questionable thoughts on astronomy based on those summarian tablets. I also said that doesn’t make him wrong on his claims toward christianity, but you can assume I was trying to debate planets, or any other line you need to. You spewed out three whole paragrphs for nothing.

second nothing you have brought up is all that new.

third apparently you don’t understand what that guy is actually claiming about this planet in our solar system. It isn’t on the level of Pluto.

559

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

You do know that the guy who wrote that book is claiming there is another planet in our solor system? I am not saying that means is whole thesis is wrong (because that would be a logical fallacy), but I am saying I would take his so called evidence with a grain of salt.

[/quote]

Instead of debating planets, why don’t you look at the Sumerian culture, what they believed, and examine where that culture and language intersected with the early figures in the Bible. This guy on this one web page is not making this stuff up. If you want the information and you want to take the time to consider it, it’s out there. Otherwise, you can just accept orthodoxy on faith, like the rest of the sheep.

You seriously want to get hung up on the authenticity of a planet when in our own modern time pluto has and has not been considered a planet? Instead of nit picking, why don’t you open your mind to the startling fact that this very ancient culture apparently understood there were planets, a solar system and that they apparently revolved around the sun?!

Or at least do this; give some serious time to consider what christian scholars themselves will admit about the alleged life of jesus, the various scriptures, the gospels, etc. And after that, if you still find yourself compelled to accept it all on “faith”, well at least you’ve done your homework :slight_smile: If you do the work, the answers might just shock you.
[/quote]

ah yes. assume I have not read the link nor considered any of the information brought forth.

first off my beliefs are mine, because I have put the time in to study and determine what I believe. Which I have not stated nor did I imply with my post. I just brought up that the source you are using has some questionable thoughts on astronomy based on those summarian tablets. I also said that doesn’t make him wrong on his claims toward christianity, but you can assume I was trying to debate planets, or any other line you need to. You spewed out three whole paragrphs for nothing.

second nothing you have brought up is all that new.

third apparently you don’t understand what that guy is actually claiming about this planet in our solar system. It isn’t on the level of Pluto.

[/quote]

I didn’t assume that at all;

Agreed; and as stated, I just grabbed the first thing;

Never claimed it was new. The outright forgeries, plagiarisms and myths of Christianity are in fact well documented :);

I know exactly what they are speaking of relative to this claimed “planet”. Perhaps Pluto was a bad analogy. Fair enough.

560

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You show some knowledge of the subject definitely. I’ll have to read the whole article and get back to you. I can tell you that it’s widely known the word Elohim can be both singular and plural. The verb usage in the Bible though always has it as singular. It’s no different than the word fish which can also be singular and plural. I’m always ready for questions so feel free. Thanks for the logical discussion.[/quote]

No. It was used / misused to fit a dogma.
[/quote]

You do know that the guy who wrote that book is claiming there is another planet in our solor system? I am not saying that means is whole thesis is wrong (because that would be a logical fallacy), but I am saying I would take his so called evidence with a grain of salt.

[/quote]

Instead of debating planets, why don’t you look at the Sumerian culture, what they believed, and examine where that culture and language intersected with the early figures in the Bible. This guy on this one web page is not making this stuff up. If you want the information and you want to take the time to consider it, it’s out there. Otherwise, you can just accept orthodoxy on faith, like the rest of the sheep.

You seriously want to get hung up on the authenticity of a planet when in our own modern time pluto has and has not been considered a planet? Instead of nit picking, why don’t you open your mind to the startling fact that this very ancient culture apparently understood there were planets, a solar system and that they apparently revolved around the sun?!

Or at least do this; give some serious time to consider what christian scholars themselves will admit about the alleged life of jesus, the various scriptures, the gospels, etc. And after that, if you still find yourself compelled to accept it all on “faith”, well at least you’ve done your homework :slight_smile: If you do the work, the answers might just shock you.
[/quote]

ah yes. assume I have not read the link nor considered any of the information brought forth.

first off my beliefs are mine, because I have put the time in to study and determine what I believe. Which I have not stated nor did I imply with my post. I just brought up that the source you are using has some questionable thoughts on astronomy based on those summarian tablets. I also said that doesn’t make him wrong on his claims toward christianity, but you can assume I was trying to debate planets, or any other line you need to. You spewed out three whole paragrphs for nothing.

second nothing you have brought up is all that new.

third apparently you don’t understand what that guy is actually claiming about this planet in our solar system. It isn’t on the level of Pluto.

[/quote]

It has a lot of questionable information period. The guy, as far as I know, has done no scholarship in ancient languages, cultures, or religions; at least not enough to be taken seriously in any serious academic discussion. It would be the same as me offering as my source some fanatical televangelist that claimed God lived in Delaware and wanted him to drive 10 Mercedes. I offered a logical explanation for one point, but it was immediately denied. Fine. Debate over. I just really wish some people would stop and consider what they choose to pass off as “fantasy” and what they choose to be open to.

561

[quote]BBriere wrote:
It has a lot of questionable information period. The guy, as far as I know, has done no scholarship in ancient languages, cultures, or religions; at least not enough to be taken seriously in any serious academic discussion. It would be the same as me offering as my source some fanatical televangelist that claimed God lived in Delaware and wanted him to drive 10 Mercedes. I offered a logical explanation for one point, but it was immediately denied. Fine. Debate over. I just really wish some people would stop and consider what they choose to pass off as “fantasy” and what they choose to be open to.[/quote]

You are conveniently ignoring that the information that he presents is not original. You are conveniently ignoring that he states numerous accepted FACTS. I don’t have the time or the desire for a debate. Nice straw man you got there though.

562

I am proud to be a sheep of the King. I guess you could be a sheep that has no shepherd. We are all sheep that have gone astray.