Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
583

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I’ll play your game. Reference the works. Must not be from an orthodox background. It is USED both plural and singular in the OT, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct!

584

[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]

Steven Austin, who hails from the “Institute for Creation Research”. No scientific bias there :). Where is his peer reviewed publishings?

585

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I’ll play your game. Reference the works. Must not be from an orthodox background. It is USED both plural and singular in the OT, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct!
[/quote]

Ok, here is one quick reference I found. Of course by the criteria that it can’t be of a Judeo-Christian background but must be about a Judeo-Christian topic makes it harder to find sources but not impossible. I did err when I said it was only used in the singular verb form. I realized as soon as I submitted and read my own comment.

586

[quote]TheBodyGuard 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]

Steven Austin, who hails from the “Institute for Creation Research”. No scientific bias there :). Where is his peer reviewed publishings?[/quote]

Of course there is bias. There is bias in any scientific research that requires a hypothesis. If we have to discount Dr. Austin’s works because he works for a Christian based organization then we have to discount Richard Dawkins’ works because he is a professing atheism trying to prove evolution.

587

[quote]BBriere wrote:
[ Ok, here is one quick reference I found. Of course by the criteria that it can’t be of a Judeo-Christian background but must be about a Judeo-Christian topic makes it harder to find sources but not impossible. I did err when I said it was only used in the singular verb form. I realized as soon as I submitted and read my own comment.[/quote]

Sir, I don’t care and I wish you well. There is nothing to “win” here and I really have no interest in arguing. This is a debate that has raged forever and you and I will not reach an accord so why waste engery fighting? At the end of the day, you are willing to take leaps of faith. And at the end of the day, I see gaps and holes and reasons not to take the same leap of faith you have. If that is not a case of “irreconcilable differences” I don’t know what is :slight_smile:

I could spend all day kicking rocks at your faith - such as, show me all the extra-biblical references to the life of Jesus - you would fall remarkably short for such a remarkable man. The fact is, just a strong as case can be made for his existence or divinity as there is against it. This sir, is irreconcilable.

588

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Of course there is bias. There is bias in any scientific research that requires a hypothesis.[/quote]

Bias is not the same as making a hypothesis, sorry.

589

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
[ Ok, here is one quick reference I found. Of course by the criteria that it can’t be of a Judeo-Christian background but must be about a Judeo-Christian topic makes it harder to find sources but not impossible. I did err when I said it was only used in the singular verb form. I realized as soon as I submitted and read my own comment.[/quote]

Sir, I don’t care and I wish you well. There is nothing to “win” here and I really have no interest in arguing. This is a debate that has raged forever and you and I will not reach an accord so why waste engery fighting? At the end of the day, you are willing to take leaps of faith. And at the end of the day, I see gaps and holes and reasons not to take the same leap of faith you have. If that is not a case of “irreconcilable differences” I don’t know what is :slight_smile:

I could spend all day kicking rocks at your faith - such as, show me all the extra-biblical references to the life of Jesus - you would fall remarkably short for such a remarkable man. The fact is, just a strong as case can be made for his existence or divinity as there is against it. This sir, is irreconcilable.
[/quote]

Well said. I guess we are all going to have to wait to see what happens in the future. If I may speak it is your statement that pushes us Christians to want and tell you about Jesus. If we wait then it will be too late for you. At least this is what our Faith leads us to. It is hard to stop a Christian from talking about his God. Even if we get angry and frustrated, which we should temper, it is because we care about you. We do not have to defend our God, because he is bigger than us. We just want you to know what we do about Him.

591

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I’m not your secretary, so I am not going to run all over the web to find evidence to counter every article you present. That tactic was already tried in the last CvE thread.

The website you cited explicitly states in its Statement of Faith that it WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE. Do you honestly believe that constitutes “real” research, or did you not bother to take a look around the site before you copy/pasted the article link and now just refuse back down?

592

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Well said. I guess we are all going to have to wait to see what happens in the future. If I may speak it is your statement that pushes us Christians to want and tell you about Jesus. If we wait then it will be too late for you. At least this is what our Faith leads us to. It is hard to stop a Christian from talking about his God. Even if we get angry and frustrated, which we should temper, it is because we care about you. We do not have to defend our God, because he is bigger than us. We just want you to know what we do about Him.[/quote]

Listen- Those of us that aren’t christians, don’t care what you think, and we don’t want your tears shed for us.

We don’t shed tears about you people being misled by priests and novels that promise eternity- it’s your problem.

Don’t bother with those of us who reject the ridiculous hypocrisies and idiocies of organized religion in favor of either something else entirely or atheism.

It is absolutely insulting to our intelligence for you to think that we should follow anything you follow because you feel it’s better. Live and let live.[/quote]

Man Rosie, you seem a little tied up in knots today. Maybe a little extra fiber in your diet would help.

Again these are your opinions, and you are allowed to have them. I am also allowed to have my opinion. You may subscribe to live and let live, but I do not. I care more about the masses than myself.

594

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
[ Ok, here is one quick reference I found. Of course by the criteria that it can’t be of a Judeo-Christian background but must be about a Judeo-Christian topic makes it harder to find sources but not impossible. I did err when I said it was only used in the singular verb form. I realized as soon as I submitted and read my own comment.[/quote]

Sir, I don’t care and I wish you well. There is nothing to “win” here and I really have no interest in arguing. This is a debate that has raged forever and you and I will not reach an accord so why waste engery fighting? At the end of the day, you are willing to take leaps of faith. And at the end of the day, I see gaps and holes and reasons not to take the same leap of faith you have. If that is not a case of “irreconcilable differences” I don’t know what is :slight_smile:

I could spend all day kicking rocks at your faith - such as, show me all the extra-biblical references to the life of Jesus - you would fall remarkably short for such a remarkable man. The fact is, just a strong as case can be made for his existence or divinity as there is against it. This sir, is irreconcilable.
[/quote]

Well said. I guess we are all going to have to wait to see what happens in the future. If I may speak it is your statement that pushes us Christians to want and tell you about Jesus. If we wait then it will be too late for you. At least this is what our Faith leads us to. It is hard to stop a Christian from talking about his God. Even if we get angry and frustrated, which we should temper, it is because we care about you. We do not have to defend our God, because he is bigger than us. We just want you to know what we do about Him.[/quote]

LOL you see there? You guys see someone that needs “rescuing” and I see someone that believes in a well crafted tale of Santa Claus. And the irony? You are not defending “your” God - He, however manner incarnate or not, is my God too. Same with the Muslims, etc. It seems only the orthodox among us have the arrogance to claim ownership of God. I am not attacking God such that he needs your defense; I am attacking your Bible, and others like it.

One thing IS clear to me (and this thought was forwarded by Push - and he thinks I don’t listen or agree with him lol); the idea of God, whatever He may be, IS imprinted on man. Now, whether that God was in fact a race of aliens that seeded this earth or whether he is the God of orthodoxy, does not matter. The point is, I’m quite sure, there is something. I’m just convinced that something does not lie in your bible. I’m also quite convinced that no harm will come of your beliefs (as long as you persecute no one to champion those beliefs - which as occurred in the past) as no harm will come of mine.

595

Ok, well, apparently nobody seems interested in debating and/or looking up information to back their statements. I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate the truth behind Noah’s Ark. I guess everyone is done debating, doesn’t want it to turn into an argument, and now is ready to move on. Best of wishes. See you in another thread/forum.

596

all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.

598

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Again these are your opinions, and you are allowed to have them. I am also allowed to have my opinion. You may subscribe to live and let live, but I do not. I care more about the masses than myself.[/quote]

So you’d rather push your horshit on those that don’t want any part of it? That is wrong. Unequivocally wrong.

And then you people have the balls to proclaim that it’s the atheists and agnostics that always react badly to religous discussions- when you’re admitting here that you can’t keep your shit filled trap shut, but feel the need to “save us.”

You people amaze me.[/quote]

I think I am being pretty calm here. You on the other hand need to take some exlax or something. If you say no then it is no. Who said I am pushing my beleifs on you? Is this not a thread that is talking about Noahs Ark? You came into a religious based thread. Think about that Rosie.

599

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.[/quote]

Being as no one knows whether any, all, or none of them are real, it’s got about the same relevance as arguing whether an MMA fighter would beat a bodybuilder in basketball. [/quote]

MMA fighter would win. A bodybuilder could not run the court. You walked into that one. Take this with a grain of salt. Lighten up a bit.

600

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, well, apparently nobody seems interested in debating and/or looking up information to back their statements. I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate the truth behind Noah’s Ark. I guess everyone is done debating, doesn’t want it to turn into an argument, and now is ready to move on. Best of wishes. See you in another thread/forum.[/quote]

Sir, there is an entire body of academia refuting much of the bible, how it was assembled, it’s interpretion, the stories, the politics, the OT v. NT, etc etc etc. It’s out there is you care to look. The only thing you have is faith. Serious academia is NOT on your side - so I’m puzzled as to why you’re so eager to rely upon it?

However, refuting various parts of your bible does not necessarily reject a deluge at some point. Noah’s ark as you call it, does not prove the contents of the bible, which already contains borrowed and stolen stories.

601

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.[/quote]

Well, for instance, Allah and the Christian God are absolutely one in the same. As well as the Hebrew God. Right there we have covered Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. That aside, and putting aside a literal anthropomorphic God, what is it you think everyone is worshipping? If you would concur that no one is literally worshipping a white bearded man on a throne somewhere, does it matter by what name or names a people call him? Either you believe in a personal jealous God, or you believe in a higher power that cannot be expressed with our understanding. If it is the latter, what matters by what name or identity it is? If it is the former, you are in the orthodox camp.

602

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, well, apparently nobody seems interested in debating and/or looking up information to back their statements. I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate the truth behind Noah’s Ark. I guess everyone is done debating, doesn’t want it to turn into an argument, and now is ready to move on. Best of wishes. See you in another thread/forum.[/quote]

Sir, there is an entire body of academia refuting much of the bible, how it was assembled, it’s interpretion, the stories, the politics, the OT v. NT, etc etc etc. It’s out there is you care to look. The only thing you have is faith. Serious academia is NOT on your side - so I’m puzzled as to why you’re so eager to rely upon it?

However, refuting various parts of your bible does not necessarily reject a deluge at some point. Noah’s ark as you call it, does not prove the contents of the bible, which already contains borrowed and stolen stories.[/quote]

What is your definition of “Serious Adacemia?”

603

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all versions of god are the same god in the end? no - can’t agree with that. The god’s described and worshipped by all of the various faiths and non-faiths csannot be reconciled into being the same entity.[/quote]

Well, for instance, Allah and the Christian God are absolutely one in the same. As well as the Hebrew God. Right there we have covered Christianity/Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. That aside, and putting aside a literal anthropomorphic God, what is it you think everyone is worshipping? If you would concur that no one is literally worshipping a white bearded man on a throne somewhere, does it matter by what name or names a people call him? Either you believe in a personal jealous God, or you believe in a higher power that cannot be expressed with our understanding. If it is the latter, what matters by what name or identity it is? If it is the former, you are in the orthodox camp.
[/quote]

You getting your information on all the gods from your “Serious Academia?” Many Muslims, Christians, and Jews would disagree on saying that their God is the same as the other groups.

604

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, well, apparently nobody seems interested in debating and/or looking up information to back their statements. I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate the truth behind Noah’s Ark. I guess everyone is done debating, doesn’t want it to turn into an argument, and now is ready to move on. Best of wishes. See you in another thread/forum.[/quote]

Sir, there is an entire body of academia refuting much of the bible, how it was assembled, it’s interpretion, the stories, the politics, the OT v. NT, etc etc etc. It’s out there is you care to look. The only thing you have is faith. Serious academia is NOT on your side - so I’m puzzled as to why you’re so eager to rely upon it?

However, refuting various parts of your bible does not necessarily reject a deluge at some point. Noah’s ark as you call it, does not prove the contents of the bible, which already contains borrowed and stolen stories.[/quote]

I agree in so much as there are numerous volumes refuting the credibility of the Bible. There are also numerous volumes supporting the credibility of the Bible. That is what I want to debate. I like apologetics and want to be given hard to answer questions that require explanation. This is the only real way that some people will see the logistics behind a creator. I realize that not every person in the world is going to listen to a Christian view in a discussion and say, “Oh, now it all makes sense. I’ll change my ways immediately.” It took several times over for me to be convinced.

That’s why I started a new thread. I want people to come to debate/discuss not just argue. I want people to be ready to provide sources not just offer opinions or beliefs.

605

Body and Irish,

I understand that you may not want a Christian telling you what they believe in an effort to save your soul as dmaddox has expressed, but let’s put this into a different context.

We are all on this site because we love the iron (psyched for workout tomorrow) now, if you saw one of your friends trying to do a front squat with a screwed up form, arms at weird angles and wearing cowboy boots, you would be excused for stepping in and trying to offer some assistance/correction to his form, right? Now it may turn out that he is some kind of were masochist with a boot fetish, alright, you gave your input and left the decision up to him. That is all that dmaddox was proposing - he cares genuinely about others, wants to give them the info if given an opportunity and then leave the decision up to them. Nothing more than that.

Can you not understand that if your really cared about someone, knew some info that might be of great help to them, you would be inclined to at least share the info - even if they never used it?

Not saying you have to agree, not saying that you have to listen to him preach at you every 5 minutes - simply lets let each other present our views, express them sincerely and leave the decision up to the other person.

I personaly love discussing issues with people of opposite, different or unique beliefs, because it challenges mine, might bring me some new enlightenment and offers the chance to build relationships with people i admire and respect (yes, even with Dustin).

anyway, just my two cents - may not mean anything to you guys, but I would want your input if it could help me, that’s all