Noah's ark found??

[Top Gun]

The problem with having to take the Bible as literal truth, with no exceptions…well I’m sorry to say…but it has to be nothing, when given that choice.

I think the problem arises when people try to utilize the Bible, or at least specific parts of it, for purposes which it was never intended in the first place. To use the most prominent example, Genesis was never written as an historically- or scientifically-accurate account of the origins of the Earth, or of humanity. The textual structure of Genesis 1, with its repeated phrases for each "day" of creation, bears all the hallmarks of an allegorical myth, written to emphasize God's role in the entire universe's creation. It's the equivalent of the parables Christ told in the Gospels, stories meant to emphasize some aspect of man's relationship with God. In the same way, stories like Noah's ark and the Tower of Babel are written in a mythological style, not as factual accounts. I mean, just think about it for a second...a ship the size of Noah's ark wouldn't be able to fit anything resembling the total number of animal species on the planet, much less house them for that many days.

The bottom line is, different parts of the Bible use various literary styles for a number of different purposes, ranging from legal codification to poetry to straight narrative. Trying to view them all through the same filter does disservice to each one's original intention and can lead to some sadly-widespread misconceptions...like the fact that a significant percentage of Americans believe that the Earth sprung into being some 6000 years ago.

[Bet51987]

.

[Jeff250]

The popularity of the Deluge Myth is more likely an instance of convergent mythology. Humans like to tell the same kinds of stories, regardless of who or where you are. Some humans in different parts of the world probably saw sea shells in high altitudes, naively reasoning that they only could have gotten there through some sort of great flood, and then imagined a great flood story. I think it says more about who we are that different cultures' mythologies share themes than it does about the historical account of the world. Besides, when you pick one myth to be true because of its popularity, then you open the door to the others being true as well.

it is funny how people say there is no evidence of a world wide flood, yet you can collect sea shells on top of nearly any mountain top on our planet

Leonardo da Vinci was the first to truly attack this problem head-on. I think that his reasoning is just as sound today as it was back then.

ok, so hereit is.... how did all these cities get built on the BOTTOM of the ocean floor?

I read to the bottom of your first link. It concludes:

But when it comes to Atlantis, Google totally had to rain on everyone's parade. "It's true that many amazing discoveries have been made in Google Earth, including a pristine forest in Mozambique that is home to previously unknown species and the remains of an ancient Roman villa," a statement from Google read. "In this case, however, what users are seeing is an artifact of the data collection process. Bathymetric (or sea floor terrain) data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the sea floor. The lines reflect the path of the boat as it gathers the data."

I mean, come on, making me read through an article just to find out that it refutes your claim at the bottom is not cool of you at all.

-----

I think that the best way out of this is to follow Top Gun's reasoning. I think Lothar once responded to a claim of how some of the stories in Genesis closely mirror other myths that we know to have preceded the Old Testament, e.g., the Epic of Gilgamesh. He argued something to the effect that this was intentional, as the authors wanted to reveal the nature of God by offering stories with differences contrasting the myths that everyone would have been already familiar with. Since the Epic of Gilgamesh also includes a deluge myth, it seems like the same reasoning can be applied here. Perhaps Lothar could correct or clarify my murky memory of his argument (or even if it was his). Speaking of which, I'm curious in general as to what some of my favorite Christian posters, e.g. Kilarin/Foil/Lothar/Snoopy (hope I didn't leave anyone out), feel about the historical factuality of a worldwide flood.

[Heretic]

You know if you reject part of the truth of God you might as well reject all of it.

So if the flood didn't happen then neither did the life and death of Christ. So there is no reason to uphold the law of god. Is that the road you really want to travel. Besides unbiased science does not exist when it comes to a scientific evaluation of the Bible or topics like origins. This is because of the commitment in science to naturalism, the doctrine that the mechanistic laws of nature are adequate to explain all phenomena.

2 Timothy 2:15

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[flip]

Why does everyone always assume these animals were full grown? Seems to me the wisest thing to do if you had to load a boat full of animals, would be to take the yearlings and leave the full grown. Even an elephant is no larger than a full grown dog when still young. Would that have been enough room. Maybe. Let's also take into account that some were left behind and became extinct. I mean if you believe that Moses, through God's spirit, split the Red Sea then believing in Noah is no hard stretch. Peter walked on the water? OK. That too. Lazurus raised from the dead and Jesus also. Christians believe in a God where nothing is impossible. The story of Egypt and Moses is a part of the Jews historical record in which they can trace back their lineage to one man (Abraham), then further back to the patriarchs and all the way to Adam. If you believe that God created everything that exists just by his words and his will, then these other stories seem just as possible. Don't try to make logic out of spiritual things just to save face. We serve an AWESOME GOD.

[Top Gun]

You know if you reject part of the truth of God you might as well reject all of it.

So if the flood didn't happen then neither did the life and death of Christ. So there is no reason to uphold the law of god. Is that the road you really want to travel. Besides unbiased science does not exist when it comes to a scientific evaluation of the Bible or topics like origins. This is because of the commitment in science to naturalism, the doctrine that the mechanistic laws of nature are adequate to explain all phenomena.

I'm not "rejecting" the truth of anything, simply recognizing that the Bible was not written as a strictly-historical or scientific document. In fact, I'd argue that your viewpoint does far more disservice in willfully ignoring the different literary styles present in the Bible, and their various primary purposes, than my viewpoint of acknowledging them ever could. The Gospels are written in straight narrative style, for the purpose of documenting the life, death, and resurrection of Christ; this contrasts clearly with the styles used in Genesis. There's no double standard at all in holding one as a spiritual metaphor and the other as historical truth.

And of course science can take an unbiased view of a concept like the origin of the Earth or the life on it...it's just a matter of observing natural evidence and examining which conclusions drawn about it held up. Pure science doesn't particularly care which conclusion among many holds up, but only seeks to disprove conclusions which do not. The concept of explaining the world through natural processes in no way invalidates the concept of God; hell, as far as I'm concerned, the cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang might as well be God's hallmark on the universe. In the same way, the Bible can be examined in both a literary and historical context, to gain a greater understanding of the circumstances of its writing and the intent of its text.

Why does everyone always assume these animals were full grown? Seems to me the wisest thing to do if you had to load a boat full of animals, would be to take the yearlings and leave the full grown. Even an elephant is no larger than a full grown dog when still young. Would that have been enough room. Maybe.

Probably not. And don't forget that not only would you need room for every single animal species on the planet, you'd also need room for everything that every single animal species on the planet would need to eat...which in many cases, includes members of the others species present. It's not going to work.

I mean if you believe that Moses, through God's spirit, split the Red Sea then believing in Noah is no hard stretch. Peter walked on the water? OK. That too. Lazurus raised from the dead and Jesus also. Christians believe in a God where nothing is impossible. The story of Egypt and Moses is a part of the Jews historical record in which they can trace back their lineage to one man (Abraham), then further back to the patriarchs and all the way to Adam. If you believe that God created everything that exists just by his words and his will, then these other stories seem just as possible. Don't try to make logic out of spiritual things just to save face. We serve an AWESOME GOD.

I simply don't see how applying reason to one's personal faith counts as saving face; if anything, thinking critically about what we believe in helps us grow stronger in that same faith. The thing is, you simply can't look at the physical universe simply through the context of spirituality...that's putting the cart before the horse. Instead, by looking at spirituality through the context of the universe around us, we can come to a greater understanding of how God's creation unfolded, and what our place in it is. Rational thought need not be divorced from faith, and scientific research and religious belief can peacefully coexist, dealing with different aspects of the same questions.

[flip]

Yeah but see if Noah is not a real person, as Moses, who wrote of him portrays him to be, then the lineage breaks and there is no direct line back to Adam. Therefore , Jesus can no longer have died for all of man because of the sin of one man. The lineage and the account must be correct or it fails just on that basis alone. Do you believe the account of Moses parting the sea or the plagues that came upon Egypt that were meant to free Israel as a nation? In Hebrews, Paul writes of Noah as being a champion of faith. Being warned of the destruction to come to build a boat. Paul recognizes him as a real person and a real event in the New Testament also.

[CUDA]

Yeah but see if Noah is not a real person, as Moses, who wrote of him portrays him to be, then the lineage breaks and there is no direct line back to Adam. Therefore , Jesus can no longer have died for all of man because of the sin of one man. The lineage and the account must be correct or it fails just on that basis alone. Do you believe the account of Moses parting the sea or the plagues that came upon Egypt that were meant to free Israel as a nation? In Hebrews, Paul writes of Noah as being a champion of faith. Being warned of the destruction to come to build a boat. Paul recognizes him as a real person and a real event in the New Testament also.

Very valid point, something I had never thought of. good job flip

[flip]

God is the revealer of truth, I'm just a good listener.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yeah!!

[Bet51987]

.

[Heretic]

I've said many times that parts of the bible need to be thrown out and a new version written.

First Mawhahahhahahahaaha

Second rewritten in your views again Mawhahahahahaha.

You should have the name Heretic. So you want to take something that was written between 170 BC to AD 68 to accommodate your belief system. No think you. Ride your own train to hell lady.

[CUDA]

I'm at work so I only have time to respond quickly to one statement.

Jesus never said "I am God"

" And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. " (Exodus 3:14)

God tells Moses his name "I am"

" Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. " (John 8:56-59)

these are the only two places in the Bible where I am is used. the Jews knew that Jesus had just called himself God, thats why they tried to stone him.

also

Once, when the Pharisees were disparaging Jesus and challenging Him, Jesus responded, " I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'" (John 10:30-33)

[CUDA]

edit doesnt work

so since Jesus claimed to be God and if he wasnt he was indeed a liar.

plus when you read the old testament propheices fore-telling of Christ to say they were accurate would be an understatment.

Genesis 12:1-3 states the Messiah would come from the seed of Abraham.
Genesis 49:10 states that He would be of the tribe of Judah.
2 Samuel 7:12 states that Messiah would be of the line of King David.
Micah 5:2 states that He would be born in the city of Bethlehem.
Daniel 9:24 states He would die or be \"cut off\" exactly 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct the temple in 444 B.C.
Isaiah 53 states that the Messiah would die with thieves, then be buried in a richman's tomb.
Psalm 22:16 states upon His death His hands and His feet would be pierced. This is quite significant since Roman crucifixion had not been invented at the time the Psalmist was writing.
Isaiah 49:7 states that Messiah would be known and hated by the entire nation. Not many men become known by their entire nation, and even less are despised by the entire nation.


Mathematicians have estimated that the possibility of sixteen of these prophecies being fulfilled by chance are about 1/10 to the 45th power.

thats a chances of
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 to 1

doesnt seem like an accident to me

[flip]

Bee it's obvious your no dummy. I think the problem lies in taking the word of those around you instead of seeking it out for yourself. I can tell from alot of your statements you know very little of what is actually written and are relying on others interpretation. You may not change your mind but you would at least have an accurate view of how Jesus portrayed himself and thought of himself. Cuda's right in saying we're left with only 3 views that can be held of Jesus. He claimed to be God and he was. He lied and claimed to be God so he could exalt himself over others. He was a lunatic who thought he was God. He has to be either who he claimed to be, a liar, or a nutcase. Since he did die for his belief, I think we can rule out liar from jumpstreet.

[Bet51987]

.

[Will Robinson]

...So you want to take something that was written between 170 BC to AD 68 to accommodate your belief system.....

Why should she be denied that luxury, the 'official' spokesmen of God have been at it for centuries....

[flip]

Bee, I'm not talking about whether you believe it or not or even understand it. I'm pointing out that the times you've read it, more than once you even say, you still miss key elements. How can you not believe something that you don't even know what it says. From your post you state \"He never claimed to be God\" when he most certainly did. That was the very reason he was put to death, for claiming equality with God. If you miss that then I doubt your claim as to reading it thoroughly and your ability to then refute it is weak at best.(your argument simply becomes \" I don't believe it\") I'll listen to arguments about the text, but to me it's like having a discussion about Shakespeare's works. If you don't know the work how can you make a strong argument against it?

[Top Gun]

Yeah but see if Noah is not a real person, as Moses, who wrote of him portrays him to be, then the lineage breaks and there is no direct line back to Adam. Therefore , Jesus can no longer have died for all of man because of the sin of one man. The lineage and the account must be correct or it fails just on that basis alone. Do you believe the account of Moses parting the sea or the plagues that came upon Egypt that were meant to free Israel as a nation? In Hebrews, Paul writes of Noah as being a champion of faith. Being warned of the destruction to come to build a boat. Paul recognizes him as a real person and a real event in the New Testament also.

Even if you take the traditional view that Moses himself recorded most of the Pentateuch (obviously not all, since his own death is detailed at the end of Deuteronomy; modern scholarship tends to place Genesis's final form around 600 BC), I simply don't see how Noah's real actions not exactly matching Moses' portrayal of them in Genesis damages any sort of spiritual lineage. Moses would have been writing his text based on oral storytelling from centuries before he lived, so he himself would not be responsible for its literal accuracy either way. In the same way, Paul would have no means of determining whether or not the portrayal of Noah in the Torah was literal truth; as his epistles suggest, by default, he would most likely assume that it was, absent any other study at the time. For their purposes, a globally-encompassing flood could have been an historical possibility, but modern geological evidence has disproved it. Moses (or whoever you take as the author of Genesis) and Paul were simply writing within the limitations of their times.

As far as this supposed direct genealogical lineage back to Adam goes, we know from genetic evidence (particularly mitochondrial DNA) that human beings didn't all descend from a single pair of forebears, a literal Adam and Eve; indeed, that sort of situation couldn't exist logistically. (For one, I'm curious as to who their children would have had sex with. ) The sin of "Adam" wasn't simply a man and a woman eating a fruit, but instead a symbol for the innate sinful nature that all of us exhibit as flawed human beings. Christ's death on the cross didn't just pay for the sins of a single man...it freed us all from that curse of original sin and granted us our salvation. That, to me, is a far more powerful truth than being bound to the idea of Adam as that literal naked man in the Garden.

This conversation is kind of a perfect example of why I find a strictly-literal interpretation of essentially every sentence in the Bible to be so potentially damaging. Invariably, certain portions of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, have come into conflict with what archaeology and science have discovered about the history of our world. If you continue to grasp onto that textual literalism, you'll inevitably find yourself at odds with indisputable physical evidence...which can only lead to either looking like a fool or undermining your own faith. However, if you look at the Bible in its proper literary and historical context, you can reconcile what we know and discover about the universe with your own beliefs, and grow stronger in your faith as a result.

[Jeff250]

Mathematicians have estimated that the possibility of sixteen of these prophecies being fulfilled by chance are about 1/10 to the 45th power.

Genesis 12:1-3 states the Messiah would come from the seed of Abraham.

I looked this first one up, and frankly it doesn't say anything of the sort.

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

It doesn't even mention any Messiah. It looks like a run of the mill blessing to me. Right? Are the rest any better? To be honest, this is kind of insulting. Even if you could convince me that this were some sort of Messianic prophecy, all you would have is the second half of the Bible saying that the first half was fulfilled.

[Duper]

the reference is obscure, but verse three is a reference to Christ.

I looked this first one up, and frankly it doesn't say anything of the sort.

what is \"it\". Where did you look?

Here are a couple of links that I hit right off the top. (87,000 results in all )

1

2

3

4

5

6

I glanced over the sites and most have a reference to the figures. Not clean and all that, but just saying that data is out there.

[Spidey]

I’m sorry but, I am having trouble reconciling Fulfillment #7...If Jesus was on trial for claiming to be God, how could he have been innocent, if indeed he did claim to be God? (some believe he never did)

And he was on trial for “claiming” to be God, not for “being” God, which would make him innocent of lieing, but not the charges.

There is some skewed logic in there.

[Jeff250]

I looked this first one up, and frankly it doesn't say anything of the sort.

what is "it". Where did you look?

CUDA posted a list of supposed biblical prophecies about the Messiah. "It" is the verse reference that I had quoted above and whose contents itself I had pasted below. It was the first verse that he had listed. I pasted the NIV version.

the reference is obscure, but verse three is a reference to Christ.

"Obscure" is an understatement.

Let me argue this a different way. This verse is in no way falsifiable. No matter what had happened, you would have considered it fulfilled. Since it doesn't even mention the Messiah, if Jesus had not come, you would have just said that some other really cool thing that came from Israel would have fulfilled it. It really could have originally been about anything. Good prophecy is falsifiable. This one isn't falsifiable. It's bad prophecy.

[flip]

Well I'm wondering this then. Who gave Moses the 10 commandments? Now this question is for christians because I know what the unbelievers answer is gonna be. I keep hearing that the authors of these books were limited in their understanding and only wrote from what they could understand. My take and belief the whole time is that it is the inspired Word Of God. That these people did not write of their own will, but rather wrote down what they heard. Moses actually asked to see God and God walked by him proclaiming his name and goodness. Now if Moses is just writing a story or an account of his own will, then it's a lie. He claimed to have gotten the 10 commandments directly from God who is the one who actually wrote the commandments on the stone tablets. That is what Moses claimed. All the bible is a collection of writings. Written over a period of about 1600 years, on 3 different continents, and in 3 different languages. By over 40 different authors. The point of that is they all agree. I've said many times find a contradiction. We can't hardly even find 2 christians on this board to be in total agreement, but those 66 books are. To me that means God wrote those books, through divine enlightenment to men. So whatever a man's understanding at that time was means nothing, because the author himself was writing down what he heard from God and not from his own understanding. Paul claimed to have went directly to heaven and heard things he wasn't even permitted to tell anyone. From God. Most of everyone of these books, the author claims that the Word Of The Lord came to him. Then he continues to write down what he claims God told him to write. Now you don't have to believe it, but the claim of all the authors is that God told them what to write. So their understanding of the world had little to do with it and the fact that there is so much agreement I think proves it. I think it proves that there is actually only one author, God himself, working through men to reveal his self and his ways.

Now let everyone here disagree with me a little bit or a lot and prove me right again.

[flip]

Jeff,

The prophecy given to Abraham that he would make a great nation from his seed. Did that come true?

[Jeff250]

It had already come true by the time it was written down.

[Top Gun]

Now let everyone here disagree with me a little bit or a lot and prove me right again.

I will agree in that I believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, but I don't see the circumstances of its authorship as being as simplistic as God dictating every single exact word in a booming voice from the sky. The inspiration came from above, but the actual texts were written down by real human beings, so that element has to be taken into account. And consider that these text were being recorded for a populace that isn't exactly what we'd call enlightened by modern standards; the use of allegories and metaphors was necessary to explain theological concepts to people with little-to-no formal education. I have no problem at all in people believing that Moses received the stone tablets directly from God, a la Charlton Heston; I'm not sure either way myself, but I'm open to that being a literal account. But the intent of that passage doesn't have any direct bearing on the intent of certain other passages in Genesis, no matter who authored it.

(Also, my version of the Bible has 73 books in it. )

[flip]

LOL what's that verse about He that winketh with his eye?

[Duper]

If you read the account within Exodus, Both actually happened Top.

iirc, Moses cut out the tablets both times. The first time God wrote on the tablets. The second time Moses did. If you can't accept that as truth, then there really is no point in accepting any other miracle within the bible.

[CUDA]

I present to you these 15 Commandments.....ERRRRR these 10 Commandments

[Top Gun]

If you read the account within Exodus, Both actually happened Top.

iirc, Moses cut out the tablets both times. The first time God wrote on the tablets. The second time Moses did. If you can't accept that as truth, then there really is no point in accepting any other miracle within the bible.

No offense, Duper, but I feel like you didn't even get the point I was making about taking the context of separate portions of the Bible into consideration; for instance, treating the early chapters of Genesis as allegorical doesn't invalidate treating the Gospels as straight factual narrative. And I stated that I don't really have any problem with taking the account of Moses receiving the Law literally. In any case, I don't think the most important feature of that story is how Moses received the Ten Commandments, but that he received the Ten Commandments, and what those Commandments were.

[flip]

You do realize that Moses is said to be a descendant of Noah right? Noah had to at least be a real person.

[Bet51987]

.

[flip]

Bee you said Jesus did not claim to be God. He did. That's at least one thing you missed and that one kinda glares off the pages. I'm not saying in this response that he is or isn't. Just that you missed a very obvious and fundamental meaning of the text. I mean it is not obscure at all but very plain. I'm not sure now what your doing but it seems alot like backpedaling from a statement you made.

[CUDA]

I've noticed a few have been silent on this issue because either they're busy or just don't want to rock the boat...no pun intended.

Bee

I'm at work getting ready to go on Vacation. so I havent had time to really post anything indepth the last few days hopefully this thread will still be going when I get back next Wednesday

[Top Gun]

You do realize that Moses is said to be a descendant of Noah right? Noah had to at least be a real person.

He may have been a real person, but my point is that the "globe-spanning flood" and "every single animal species in one boat" portions of the story should be viewed as mythological in nature. In any case, I don't see how the specifics of Moses' genealogy affect the situation either way.

[Xamindar]

Some day, thousands of years from now, people will refer to the stories of Hitler as \"mythological in nature\".

[Bet51987]

.

[Gooberman]

Some day, thousands of years from now, people will refer to the stories of Hitler as "mythological in nature".

Someone doesn't follow Iranian politics....

[AlphaDoG]

Some day, thousands of years from now, people will refer to the stories of Hitler as "mythological in nature".

Assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves, the video archives
would still be around.

bee

Just so you know. I'm NOT destroying ANYTHING! Unless you count the immediate area AROUND me.