Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
563

Since I have scared off my muslim apologists, I guess I will come over here and stir this pot as well.

For all of those who say that there is not enough water to flood the entire planet consider this option:

Prior to the flood the oceans as we kow them did not exist. The tectoni plates were above a massive water table that burst through the land mass (fountains of the deep) causing the plates to subside below the water, creating the continents aqnd the oceans, upheaving massive mountain ranges onto one of which the Ark settled and as the water receeded - what was formerly low land had (because of the plate subsidence and continental formation) become a mountain range - Bible never said that the mountains of Arrarat were mountains prior to the flood . . .

just wrap your heads around that one . . . :slight_smile:

564

Wow. Never actually thought of it that way. There can be many different theories I guess.

565

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

No one is ignoring anything. If this is such a death nail as you describe it then why don’t more skeptics use this argument? I would imagine it is because you can’t make a conclusive case for the hypothesis.

So much of the history at that point is up for debate that it is hard to make many claims with great certainity. Shoot look at egyptian Chronology. It is prob. the most intact historical information that we have and yet there are glaring problems with dating as well as events. Not to mention the extreme hyperbole that the pharohs used to bolster thier claims.

You don’t have time to debate it and neither do I, but your drive by arguments are rather an unfair position. If you want to bring up a topic atleast be willing to see the discussion out.

566

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
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. [/quote]

Very informative and thought provoking…

567

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

actually your whole post stated and implied that I should look into X (ie reasons for and against Christianity, not just that website). Which instantly takes the position that I have not looked into X. Now that sounds alot like an assumption on what I have actually looked into vs. have not.

I was not against that website, I was referring to the author of the book that the website used for source material.

568

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Since I have scared off my muslim apologists, I guess I will come over here and stir this pot as well.

For all of those who say that there is not enough water to flood the entire planet consider this option:

Prior to the flood the oceans as we kow them did not exist. The tectoni plates were above a massive water table that burst through the land mass (fountains of the deep) causing the plates to subside below the water, creating the continents aqnd the oceans, upheaving massive mountain ranges onto one of which the Ark settled and as the water receeded - what was formerly low land had (because of the plate subsidence and continental formation) become a mountain range - Bible never said that the mountains of Arrarat were mountains prior to the flood . . .

just wrap your heads around that one . . . :)[/quote]

And yet every civilization in the surrounding area went about their lives with no interruption. Tectonic shift on the scale you are talking about in the scale of time you are talking about would cause major havoc. And yet… no evidence of that.

Just wrap your heads around that one… : \

569

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Since I have scared off my muslim apologists, I guess I will come over here and stir this pot as well.

For all of those who say that there is not enough water to flood the entire planet consider this option:

Prior to the flood the oceans as we kow them did not exist. The tectoni plates were above a massive water table that burst through the land mass (fountains of the deep) causing the plates to subside below the water, creating the continents aqnd the oceans, upheaving massive mountain ranges onto one of which the Ark settled and as the water receeded - what was formerly low land had (because of the plate subsidence and continental formation) become a mountain range - Bible never said that the mountains of Arrarat were mountains prior to the flood . . .

just wrap your heads around that one . . . :)[/quote]

And yet every civilization in the surrounding area went about their lives with no interruption. Tectonic shift on the scale you are talking about in the scale of time you are talking about would cause major havoc. And yet… no evidence of that.

Just wrap your heads around that one… : [/quote]

you can’t think out of the box, eh?

570

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Since I have scared off my muslim apologists, I guess I will come over here and stir this pot as well.

For all of those who say that there is not enough water to flood the entire planet consider this option:

Prior to the flood the oceans as we kow them did not exist. The tectoni plates were above a massive water table that burst through the land mass (fountains of the deep) causing the plates to subside below the water, creating the continents aqnd the oceans, upheaving massive mountain ranges onto one of which the Ark settled and as the water receeded - what was formerly low land had (because of the plate subsidence and continental formation) become a mountain range - Bible never said that the mountains of Arrarat were mountains prior to the flood . . .

just wrap your heads around that one . . . :)[/quote]

And yet every civilization in the surrounding area went about their lives with no interruption. Tectonic shift on the scale you are talking about in the scale of time you are talking about would cause major havoc. And yet… no evidence of that.

Just wrap your heads around that one… : [/quote]

you can’t think out of the box, eh?[/quote]

It’s one thing to think outside the box. It is another entirely to discard the laws of physics, especially when your solution is to invent skyhooks.

571

[quote]Makavali wrote:

It’s one thing to think outside the box. It is another entirely to discard the laws of physics, especially when your solution is to invent skyhooks.[/quote]

So much for open minded discussion

Seriously? Your little mental box is so small you cannot even entertain a concept? Did I say that my idea had to hold to a specific timeline? - no, Did I say that my idea had to fit any particular narrative? - no.

All I did was offer a novel concept that would have allowed for a mass global flood from a unique perspective of a flatter pre-flood world that would be vastly different from the post-flood world - that’s it - but your anti-biblical bigotry won’t even let your feeble faculties stretch that far, eh?

too bad for you . . . keep thinking small, my friend, keep thinking small

572

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

No one is ignoring anything. If this is such a death nail as you describe it then why don’t more skeptics use this argument? I would imagine it is because you can’t make a conclusive case for the hypothesis.

So much of the history at that point is up for debate that it is hard to make many claims with great certainity. Shoot look at egyptian Chronology. It is prob. the most intact historical information that we have and yet there are glaring problems with dating as well as events. Not to mention the extreme hyperbole that the pharohs used to bolster thier claims.

You don’t have time to debate it and neither do I, but your drive by arguments are rather an unfair position. If you want to bring up a topic atleast be willing to see the discussion out.

[/quote]

These are pretty much my points. The first and easiest argument was against Elohim. There are volumes of works explaining that it’s both a plural and singular word, but the way it’s used in the Old Testament is always with the singular verb form. However, when someone refuses to listen to that explanation which is excepted by about every Biblical critic then there is no need to go on any further with the discussion. They don’t want to accept any explanation. So I guess they win and I lose. Congratulations, next topic.

573

Here is a website that features real research, well cited references, and scholarship. Now, if you please, fine evidence to discredit it.

574

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Here is a website that features real research, well cited references, and scholarship. Now, if you please, fine evidence to discredit it.[/quote]

It features research that hasn’t been published in any non-creationist, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

-Excerpt from The Answers in Genesis “Statement of Faith”

Yes. “Real”, unbiased research.

575

You can’t prove the bible. Its kind of one of those ‘faith’ dealies.

Jesus Christ…

577

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

It’s one thing to think outside the box. It is another entirely to discard the laws of physics, especially when your solution is to invent skyhooks.[/quote]

So much for open minded discussion

Seriously? Your little mental box is so small you cannot even entertain a concept? Did I say that my idea had to hold to a specific timeline? - no, Did I say that my idea had to fit any particular narrative? - no.

All I did was offer a novel concept that would have allowed for a mass global flood from a unique perspective of a flatter pre-flood world that would be vastly different from the post-flood world - that’s it - but your anti-biblical bigotry won’t even let your feeble faculties stretch that far, eh?

too bad for you . . . keep thinking small, my friend, keep thinking small[/quote]

No, I can’t grasp how you think tectonic shift on a scale that creates mountains wouldn’t be noticed by adjacent civilizations.

Just because I pick at flaws in your half baked stories, doesn’t make me close minded. My so called anti-biblical bigotry doesn’t come into this, it’s simply a case of you making up a story that isn’t feasible and you getting called out on it.

578

[quote]anonym wrote:
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

-Excerpt from The Answers in Genesis “Statement of Faith”
[/quote]

579

And that’s game over for any intelligent discussion right there.

580

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Here is a website that features real research, well cited references, and scholarship. Now, if you please, fine evidence to discredit it.[/quote]

It features research that hasn’t been published in any non-creationist, peer-reviewed scientific journal.[/quote]

We’ve been down this road before. You should know better. I ought to paddle your skinny ass.[quote]

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

-Excerpt from The Answers in Genesis “Statement of Faith”

Yes. “Real”, unbiased research.[/quote]

Speaking of “real, unbiased research” in peer-reviewed scientific journals what about the junk science that established man made global warming a fact? It cruised right on through ye ol’ peer review. Berember, Tonto?
[/quote]

Plus, I never wanted a critique of the evidence. I asked for evidence to discredit it. I know it’s out there. If the debate just becomes “I say the Bible is true” and you say “I say it’s not” then it doesn’t really matter.

581

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

It’s one thing to think outside the box. It is another entirely to discard the laws of physics, especially when your solution is to invent skyhooks.[/quote]

So much for open minded discussion

Seriously? Your little mental box is so small you cannot even entertain a concept? Did I say that my idea had to hold to a specific timeline? - no, Did I say that my idea had to fit any particular narrative? - no.

All I did was offer a novel concept that would have allowed for a mass global flood from a unique perspective of a flatter pre-flood world that would be vastly different from the post-flood world - that’s it - but your anti-biblical bigotry won’t even let your feeble faculties stretch that far, eh?

too bad for you . . . keep thinking small, my friend, keep thinking small[/quote]

No, I can’t grasp how you think tectonic shift on a scale that creates mountains wouldn’t be noticed by adjacent civilizations.

Just because I pick at flaws in your half baked stories, doesn’t make me close minded. My so called anti-biblical bigotry doesn’t come into this, it’s simply a case of you making up a story that isn’t feasible and you getting called out on it.[/quote]

uh . . . wow . . . ok, let me try one more time and I will type really slowly this time: nooo . . spe-ci-fic . . . time-line . . . nooo . . . spe-ci-fic . . . nar-ra-tive

This would mean that this was an exercise in conceptual thought - since so many cultures have a flood myth, since people have raised all sorts of objections to it - how could one have occurred (very important phrase after this parantheses) in a theoretical sense ABSENT ANY PARTICULAR TIMELINE (this means . . . noooo . . . par-ti-cu-lar . . . poi-nt . . .in . . . hi-sto-ry . . . there-fore . . . your . . . com-ment . . . a-bout . . . oth-er . . .civ-i-li-za-tions. . . is . . . moot)

again - keep your mind closed, it’s obviously safer for you that way . . .

582

[quote]BBriere wrote:
[

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.
[/quote]

Well, I was a believer until I did my research. And I am not in the least bit naive. And in fact, my day job requires a high level of critical thinking and that is my strong suit. I am not relying on psuedo anything and I regret my earlier “source” reference. I did a quick google search to illustrate the problem starting with Elohim. Big mistake. However, there is a ton of scholarship out there regarding the inaccuracy, plagiarism and outright lies in the Bible. There is legitimate scholarship there. You can either rely upon orthodox study (which will just use the Bible to prove the Bible along with a healthy dose of bias) or, you can look elsewhere in academia. If you have done the latter, and reached your personal conclusion, no one is going to change your mind now. No source material, no reference. So, there is no debate, only argument.