Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Noah's Ark Found In Turkey?
#1
Here is something near and dear to fundamentalists. Noah's Ark Found In Turkey. Note the "plausable deniablity" here of 'it has been claimed'. Actually, I thought the ark had been found, several hundred times already. Just how many arks 'has it been claimed' that Noah built?

Quote:THE remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000ft up a Turkish mountain, it has been claimed.

A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say they have found wooden remains on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.

They claim carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old — around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.


Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team, said: "It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it."

Dig

He said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.

The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000ft in the vicinity, Yeung said.

Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted.

The biblical story says that God decided to flood the Earth after seeing how corrupt it was.

He then told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species.

After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain.

Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants ran aground.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
Thirteen thousand feet! It must have been a long walk done once the water receded.
'It's not who votes that matters, it's who counts the votes'  |  György Schwartz, Budapest, Hungary
Reply
#3
WarBicycle Wrote:Thirteen thousand feet! It must have been a long walk done once the water receded.

I'm still trying to figure out where all the water suddenly went, once it enveloped the planet, reaching that high. Can you just imagine the total volume of H2O required to cover the earth and reach that high. Talk about the ultimate water world! Whew! Kevin Kostner, and his "Waterworld" movie take on a whole new proportion, doesn't it. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#4
At that altitude its surface would have been frozen.
'It's not who votes that matters, it's who counts the votes'  |  György Schwartz, Budapest, Hungary
Reply
#5
WarBicycle Wrote:At that altitude its surface would have been frozen.
And why would that be?
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#6
WarBicycle Wrote:At that altitude its surface would have been frozen.

The last time this came up, I believe Ron had an answer for it, that would have done Edgar Rice Burroughs proud. But I just cannot remember what form of contortion it entailed.

Now, Pepe may think I am playing with fantasy, with my thinking about earthquakes, undersea vulcanization, and the Jovian giants, but mine really makes sense IMO. This one is just plain Looney-Tunes. The ancient tale of the Flood came from either the sudden flooding of the Black Sea, or an Impactor strike near the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea. I don't know where the "forty days, and forty nights" got there, but there is no way that much water could have accrued with just that little rainfall timetable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
John,

If you're going to ridicule people AND have integrity,at least do your research first.
The Scriptures state it rained for 40 days and 40 nights AND that water exploded up out from the earth with water from the "great deep".

That adds a lot of water to the mix,you should at least educate yourself about what you ridicule I would think.

I at least read the communist manifesto before opposing it.




The same Scriptures explain how the water receded. Yahweh made wind blow for 150 straight days to evaporate enough for the ark to land on the "highest mountain peak".

Only that much land was exposed after almost 5 full months of high winds.



Neither scenario is that difficult to imagine from a geologic and scientific method as you infer.



The grand canyon could as easily have been carved from this phenomenon as it could have been from any other seismic event.

Ancient societies 5000 miles removed from Meopotamia had the great flood in their ancient traditions,that is anecdotal evidence this was passed on from the earliest days of man and not just local.

Makes more sense that it happened than different groups with no ties/communications dreamed the same myth up,IMO.



HERE

Your explanation for fish fossils on mountain peaks has as much plausibility as a global flood has.
Reply
#8
Quote:Claim 2 - The 'Vapour Canopy'
This theory was proposed by several proponents of Creation in order to explain simultaneously the Biblical flood, and the enormous ages of humans recorded before the flood. For example, the book of Genesis states that Adam, the first man, lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5). Many of his descendants lived over 900 years (Genesis 5:6 et. seq.). According to the book of Genesis, God then decided that man was living for too long, so decided to reduce his age to 120 years (Genesis 6). This happened during the life of Noah, and was achieved around the time of the great flood concerning which, according to the book of Genesis, God stated "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I have made them." (Genesis 6:7)

According to the Genesis account, the flood then killed almost all life on Earth, except those animals who dwelled in the water, and those few who were saved along with Noah in the Ark.

Some creationists put forward the idea of a 'vapour canopy', created at the time the Earth was formed, which hung several miles above the Earth and shielded the Earth from the Sun's harmful Ultraviolet rays. They claim that this protective layer would produce a warm, tropical climate on Earth, and would also allow the humans who lived there to live for vastly longer periods of time, perhaps a factor of twenty over what they could have expected to be a reasonable life span of 45-50 years without modern healthcare.

First of all I plan to investigate the plausibility of a 'vapour canopy', in the sense described by Creationists. Then I will investigate the claims that such a canopy could have both caused the flood (by its falling to Earth) and allowed the elongated lives of those who lived under its protective shield.

Note that throughout this article, I'm really considering a "mist" canpoy. I assume that this is what the creationists really mean. Clearly a vapour canopy is a ridiculous idea - the energy required to keep a substantial amount of water in gaseous form up in the atmosphere would be ridiculous. Adam and Eve would have been cooked very quickly indeed! It would have been like living in a steam cooker!

How much water would be required?

A first investigation is the determination of the required water content of such a canopy. The book of Genesis states that the flood waters rose so high that they covered the peaks of the highest mountains to a depth of twenty feet (Genesis 7:20). Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth, and its height is 8850 metres. If we ignore the extra 20 feet, and then calculate the amount of water required to cover the earth to this depth we obtain a value of 4.5 billion cubic kilometres. (asuming the Earth's radius to be a constant at 6360 kilometres.) Actually this is a slight underestimate, but I'll take the lower value.

This site tells us that the total volume of water on the Earth including all the oceans and the icecaps is approximately 326 million cubic miles, or approximately 820 million cubic kilometres. This is a factor of 5 lower than the volume of water required to cause the biblical flood.

How much rain would this cause

Let us investigate the rainfall rate that this amount of water would require. Assuming that it fell uniformly (which will give us the minimum possible value for the maximum rainfall rate) we can take the Biblical account and work out what the rainfall rate, in metres per hour, must have been to cause such a flood. The Bible states (Genesis 7:12) that the rains lasted for 40 days and 40 nights, or 960 hours. Now we know that the depth of water must have been 8850 metres, so this equates to a rainfall rate of 9.2 metres per hour, or 15 centimetres per minute. For comparison, the highest rainfall rate ever measured on planet Earth was 187cm in one day for Cilaos, Le Reunion in March 1952. (See this page.) The flood rainfall is a factor of 118 times higher than this!

Of course, this is not a disproof, by any means. Genesis also talks of water coming from underground; "all the springs of the great deep burst forth," (Genesis 7:11). We could investigate if any substantial amount of water could be stored underground, as this tends to suggest.

Could this water be stored underground?

The Genesis myth tells of water springing forth from the deep. Some creationists have argued that this might be able to explain the volume of water required. In addition, they argue that this might also explain where all the water went after the flood - a problem which we have yet to address. So how much water could be stored in the Earth's crust?

This site tells us that the deepest borehole ever drilled into the Earth's crust was 12km. The temperature of the bottom of the well was 190 degrees celsius, significantly above the boiling point of water. If water existed at this depth then it would simply evaporate and work its way up through fissures in the rock, bubbling out at the surface or condensing below the surface. Either way, water could not exist at 12km. Another borehole in Germany was 10km deep, with a base temperature of 118 degrees celsius. This is still too hot, but not by such a staggering amount. We could estimate that the temperature would drop sufficiently far below boiling point at around 9 kilometres depth.

Now remember that the amount of water required was a depth of 8.85 kilometres. If we were to store this in the Earth's crust then we would require 98.3% of the Earth's crust to be made of water. That simply isn't the case. Therefore we are forced to abandon this theory. (Furthermore, the average crust thickness under the oceans, which occupy over 70 percent of this planet's surface area, is only 5 kilometres, further reducing the possible quantity of water that existed under the Earth.)

Note - I should really take into account the pressure here, which would increase the boiling point of water beneath the Earth's surface. I have no accurate idea what level of effect this would have, but it certainly wouldn't be enough to make this theory plausible.

Could such a large amount of water have existed in the atmosphere?

We are forced to conclude that, presuming the Biblical account is being argued, the waters must have almost all been stored in the atmosphere. Were it not for this then we simply could not store that volume of water in the Earth's crust, or even anywhere near that volume. We would simply have found it by now.

So how could such a canopy exist? Could it simply form part of our atmosphere? Well to work this out we can consult science. We know that the atmosphere has a density distribution which follows an exponential law. That is to say that the density of the atmosphere drops off by a certain factor for a constant increase in height. The scale length for this drop off is a few kilometres. If the layer existed in liquid water form then its density would be much higher than that of the surrounding air at any height, and therefore it would immediately fall back down. However, could it exist as water vapour?

The density of steam is approximately 1/1000th that of liquid water, so even compressing the vapour as much as possible this layer must have stretched almost 10,000 kilometres into space. Now at a height of 10,000 kilometres the Earth's gravitational field is almost seven times weaker than it is at the surface, so it is not at all obvious that the Earth could hold on to this layer of vapour. I'll do the calculations some time.

However, we can still reasonably easily calculate the pressure that such a layer of water must have exerted, assuming that the majority of it is going to be lying at a height where its density is considerably higher than that of the atmosphere surrounding it (which is a perfectly valid assumption in this case - water vapour is about half as dense as air at sea level, but is ten times more dense at a height of 40 kilometres, because of the exponentially dropping atmospheric density. Remember our vapour layer is 10,000km thick, so the majority of it is therefore in this regime.

The scale depth for pressure increases in the ocean is approximately ten metres. This means that for every ten metres of depth the pressure increases by one atmosphere (100,000 pascals). Therefore, under ten kilometres of water, the pressure would reach around 1,000 atmospheres or 100 million pascals. This is the same as the pressure at the bottom of the deepest ocean trenches where so far humans have been unable to travel. In fact, we have been unable to manufacture machines out of thick reinforced steel able to withstand such pressures. All living creatures under a water canopy consisting of ten kilometres of water (except for the simplest of micro-organisms) would be crushed to death immediately.

Would a 'vapour canopy' truly protect us from ageing?

So what would the world have been like under such a canopy, with the exception of the immediate prospect of being crushed to death? If one considers the equivalent height of water contained in the atmosphere above our heads right now, it is only a few centimetres, dropping to a few millimetres in dry, high altitude sites. With almost ten kilometres of water above our heads we could expect quite a change.

Well Creationists claim that this large layer of water vapour would protect us from harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. They are absolutely correct. In fact, as I show below, it would protect us from practically all of the Sun's radiation, but that's another argument. However, the concept of advanced ages is an interesting one, and must be addressed scientifically.

Is there any evidence that human beings were designed to live for longer than about 50-60 years? Well human females have approximately enough eggs to last into their fifties. They never generate any new ones. After this age, humans have essentially fulfilled their usefulness in a biological sense , and the concept of humans having children well into their hundreds of years is clearly quite absurd. One should also consider the development of teeth. Before the advent of good dental care, most people would have lost their teeth in early age, just as animals do. However, the concept of someone living to the age of 900 even with today's dental care doesn't bear thinking about. Without dental care they would probably have been chewing on gums for 95 percent of their lives!

And what of the protection from UV radiation? Well that's all well and good, but it doesn't help humans fight disease, nor does it help us protect ourselves from wild animals and accidents. In fact, it won't help protect us from cancer much because many elements in the Earth are radioactive on their own, and can cause cancer without the Sun's rays. Interestingly, after the flood, and presumably without the protective vapour canopy, Noah lived for a further 350 years (Genesis 9:28). His sons lived into the 400s, too. If the UV layer had gone then how did this happen? Furthermore, if they had been living behind a UV protection layer of such vastness then their skins would not have developed any protection from the sun's rays - they would have been whiter than white. When that layer was removed they would all have caught skin cancer alarmingly quickly.

What would the Earth really be like

Astronomers hate water vapour - it stops them from observing the stars. Those of us who have looked through a fish tank know that water distorts light - what we see is blurred. And that's only a small amount of water. With ten kilometres of the stuff hanging over our heads we would not be able to see the stars at all. In fact we can investigate what we would be able to see. This site gives us the attenuation coefficient for a clear lake as 0.2 m^-1. Let's assume that this water from the formation of the Earth is super-pure and therefore we can take a coefficient of 0.1 m^-1. How much light from the sun would reach Earth through this blanket?

The calculation is actually remarkably simple. Light attenuation is another exponential decay problem, the mathematics of which is simple high-school stuff. We can see straightforwardly that the fraction of light reaching the surface of the Earth after travelling through ten kilometres of water would be exp(-0.1 * height) is approximately one part in 10 ^ 260. Effectively this means that the Earth would have been perpetually dark. You know what happens when a dark storm cloud consisting of water vapour just a few hundred metres in height goes overhead? The skies are dark. Well here we're trying to see what would happen if a cloud of vapour 10,000 kilometres in height went overhead. The entire Earth would be plunged into darkness.

Conclusions

The theory of a vapour canopy is so utterly wrong that it fails at nearly every possible hurdle. Just the simplistic scientific tests to which I have subjected it show that it fails catastrophically on even the most simple points of reason. The concept is undeniably false, and should be disregarded in its entirety.

Four thousand years ago people believed the world was flat and that the sky and the clouds went up forever. They didn't know how high mountains were and how much water it took to cover them. They thought that a big flood could cover the Earth and the water would evaporate or run off somewhere. They were wrong. The whole thing is a myth.
'It's not who votes that matters, it's who counts the votes'  |  György Schwartz, Budapest, Hungary
Reply
#9
Yes, such a flood is scientifically impossible, almost ipso facto. Yet the scientists posit the flooding to be global and not local, and in uniform height the world over. Two crucial assumptions.

However, many independent cultures from all around the world have flood myths. That is not scientific proof of existence, yet it makes one wonder. For example, breakage of ice dams after the last ice age has caused enormous flooding of various local regions. Some have suggested that this occurred in the flooding of the Black Sea (or even the Mediterranean), in which areas people might have lived well below current water levels before the flooding.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#10
You're making assumptions and making statements that likely are not accurate.

Example,how much water covered earth 5000 years ago? You don't know do you? Correct or false? Neither does the author,does he? So,he can't calculate how much water was needed,can he?

Example,the flat earth idea. Can you provide evidence anyone believed such nonsense ?

I've heard the Catholic Church hierarchy did,but,I'm not sure that's a fair accusation,their Bible clearly states the thing is a sphere in Isaiah,why would they believe that? What would lead them or anyone to believe to believe it?

On the face of it,I would think to myself if I heard that propounded,"What keeps the oceans from draining off the sides of earth if it's flat"?

Further,have you any evidence anyone in the ancient near east cultures believed such nonsense,that's where this specific story emanated from?

Ever heard of the seafaring folks of old(Phonecians,etc),they knew better many thousands of years back.

Paul the Apostle travelled by boat to several places,he didn't believe that stupidity,why would Christians 500 years later? That sounds like another example of negative bs passed on so often people begin thinking it's fact based.

I understand if you think the Bible is a mythical joke,but,this logic you and John propound to support your views is academically useless,neither of you take the time to know what you're denigrating,that isn't scholarship.

You guys just don't believe it. That's your angle.





I provided just a couple of ideas to hash around and you ignored them.

How much of earth's surface may have been covered before then?

Why does every culture believe in the flood,but,not in other Bible phenomenon you would call mythical that is local???

Why are fish fossils on about all mountains? What created the canyon?Like I stated,your answers have no more plausibility than Scriptural ones.

Your author claims a lot of water cannot be below the earth,yet there is a body the size of the Arctic Sea under China NOW,so much for his scholarship. He's smart and all,but,he is assuming things like the AGW models,so are you.

Because there are so many unknowns,you guys no more than I know what the deal was,you just assume you know.

I believe in the Scriptures,you think they're a comic book,neither of us can prove anything,at least I have the humility to admit it.


HERE
Reply
#11
This discussion reminds me of the shows about the Bible on the Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.

They show a dramatization of what the Bible says.
Then a "Biblical Scholar" (in priestly garb) dismisses it. They then pull some idea out of their butt and proclaim their idea is what really happened.
They give more credence to an idea they made up, than to the Bible.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#12
I once posted an link on another thread about this same subject.

the link had an article written by an christian who actually had a very reasonable explaination for the great flood.

basically in a nutshell, he said the great flood did happen, but it didn't cover the WHOLE world at all. basically, he stated that the way the bible stated it caused people to become confused and assume that it covered the whole Earth when it did not.

basically, what really happened was that there was a series of floods that occurred at once but separately from each other all over the world, but they did not cover all landmasses.

This is why you have different regional groups' accounts and their own versions of the flood stories that was set in time periods when they had no communication with each other at all.

The native Americans heard the spirit of nature's warning about there being a flood, so they took all their families, their domesticated pets, etc and climbed the highest mountain peak to sit it out while the flood went on by them. Notice how in their own story the floods was unable to reach the highest mountains, but it was able to cover everything else.

likewise, you hear similar accounts from other ethic groups about how they heard an warning about a flood from divine sources, and how they had their own methods of surviving a flood..... and in their own stories, the floods basically covered everything but the highest grounds.

So you see, the great flood didn't literally cover every inch of the earth at all. otherwise all those other groups wouldn't had survived to tell such tales, if Noah's ark story is true.

It was completely impossible for the ENTIRE world to be evil and corrupt, espeically those groups who weren't even associated with the corrupt tribes that Noah's family saw and interacted with.
So because of this reason, the massive floods did not literally cover the whole world, just the relevant parts.

Edit--
Also, notice how in the other stories via pally's link, some other people also built huge boats although not as giant as Noah's were. So what if there was actually more than one "ark"? like I said before, it was impossible for every other person in the whole world besides Noah's family to be evil, corrupt, etc.

So Noah wasn't the only one who heard that call, and the instructions to build a boat. S6
So this way Noah was realistically only able to save most of the animals on his own continent. And all those other people in their own countries also saved their own native animals along with their own families.

This is the only way the whole story could be true, and for there to be so many discoveries of an Ark.... because there wasn't only one Ark, but many.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#13
According to the Turkish Newspapers this reporting of Ark finding is a hoax, same group have reported finding of an Ark in 2007 in the same area. According to the Turkish archeologists there is no evidence that the world has been covered with water up to the level where this ark is reported to be found ( about 14,000 ft).

Catal Huyuk the oldest city in the world (7000 BC) is located in Konya Valley of Anatolia, I think it is not more than 2,000 ft. above sea level and wall paintings in the dwelling walls have no indication of water damage.
Reply
#14
Palladin Wrote:You're making assumptions and making statements that likely are not accurate.

Example,how much water covered earth 5000 years ago? You don't know do you? Correct or false? Neither does the author,does he? So,he can't calculate how much water was needed,can he?

Example,the flat earth idea. Can you provide evidence anyone believed such nonsense ?

I've heard the Catholic Church hierarchy did,but,I'm not sure that's a fair accusation,their Bible clearly states the thing is a sphere in Isaiah,why would they believe that? What would lead them or anyone to believe to believe it?

On the face of it,I would think to myself if I heard that propounded,"What keeps the oceans from draining off the sides of earth if it's flat"?

Further,have you any evidence anyone in the ancient near east cultures believed such nonsense,that's where this specific story emanated from?

Ever heard of the seafaring folks of old(Phonecians,etc),they knew better many thousands of years back.

Paul the Apostle travelled by boat to several places,he didn't believe that stupidity,why would Christians 500 years later? That sounds like another example of negative bs passed on so often people begin thinking it's fact based.

I understand if you think the Bible is a mythical joke,but,this logic you and John propound to support your views is academically useless,neither of you take the time to know what you're denigrating,that isn't scholarship.

You guys just don't believe it. That's your angle.





I provided just a couple of ideas to hash around and you ignored them.

How much of earth's surface may have been covered before then?

Why does every culture believe in the flood,but,not in other Bible phenomenon you would call mythical that is local???

Why are fish fossils on about all mountains? What created the canyon?Like I stated,your answers have no more plausibility than Scriptural ones.

Your author claims a lot of water cannot be below the earth,yet there is a body the size of the Arctic Sea under China NOW,so much for his scholarship. He's smart and all,but,he is assuming things like the AGW models,so are you.

Because there are so many unknowns,you guys no more than I know what the deal was,you just assume you know.

I believe in the Scriptures,you think they're a comic book,neither of us can prove anything,at least I have the humility to admit it.


HERE
exactly, palladin. if it pleases the lord he can open the fountains of the deep whenever he needs to root sin out, and he can make more than 4 km of rain in 40 days globally, while a modest 25 metres of rain per year is the annual record rainfall in today's world for a place in india. world record for 24 hours is 1,825 mm of rain, i looked it up. what are 300 metres of rain per day compared to the greatness of the lord?
i believe the world was far smaller before the flood, and consisted of the later chosen land, iran, iraq, turkey, and egypt only. to drain off all that water the lord in his omniewisdom simply increased the size of the planet, whereby today's oceans formed.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#15
Kamil,

It almost has to be a hoax,how could a wood craft still be there 5-10,000 years later? It's a bunch of hucksters probably or it could be a crew of some extremely naive believers.

Also,the Biblical Ararat may not be Turkey's. Mt Sinai from the Old Testament was in Arabia,yet today the Jews claim it for Israel in the Sinai Penisula. Not the same space,names change over millenia,etc.

AM,

Concerning the idea of everyone being killed,so how could folks in Guatemala and China 5000 years back have the flood tradition?

That would be based on the tower of Babel dispersion of humanity. Flood happens,survivors pass down the tradition,mankind is dispersed rapidly across the earth,voila.

For unbelievers,the dispersion is silly,yet anthroplogy has recently discovered Europeans in large quantities in China WAY before any known human migrations took place at those distances.

Explain that anthropology w/o the dispersion. Or maybe John can. He might can explain how rats as big as horses got here,too.
Reply
#16
Patrick, perhaps you are right in that I am a bit too hard on Fundamentalism, and those who have everything staked on the premises. However, you are wrong in thinking that I am not up to speed on both the Old and New Testament. I have spent countless hours, as a child, reading different accounts, attending Sunday School, memorizing scripture(Bible Memory Association), so I know the bible more than the average practitioner of the Messiah. So, don't assume that I only know enough to get myself into trouble.

It is just that I also know science, am a school trained scientists(physical anthropology), and I also believe that science and Christianity easily go hand-in-hand. In fact the two actually compliment each other.

But there is one thing making this difficult for many to see. And that 'thing' is Fundamentalism. I can go on and on about how narrow minded it is, and cite many reasons why, but I always go back to the "handwriting on the wall" and Daniel's interpretation. If G-d is able to do that very thing, and I know of no fundamentalists, who challenge this, then the Creator would be remiss in expecting we lowly humans post his word, by allowing them to do the writing.

Fortunately I had the privilege of being taught Ancient Civilization, at the Citadel, by a Dead Sea Scroll scholar, who had the old testament down pat. And he backed up everything with Facts! And Fundamentalism was not within the equation.



Anyway, let's just agree to disagree, ok?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
John,

I don't have any problem with your views of how to interpret Scripture(or even Quad's views of it). You could be right,I don't claim to know for 100% certainty.



I do not hold you in low esteem because you see it other than I do.

I was just gigging all of you who seem to know with certitude that God could not have both meant these things literally and accomplished them.

Cause no one knows that. I don't know how much is metaphor and how much isn't,I realize some is meant to be.

I understand your academic desire to be able to prove stuff. I have the same desire,just not much knowledge,I think you'll agree some things cannot be documented by science.

The "writing on the wall" comment to me is difficult. God can decide to take a life,He does it everyday.

Yet,He devolved to man the decision whether or not to take a man's life in the Torah when specific crime was involved.

Was He remiss to do so? I may have misunderstood your point there.


Science and faith go together? I agree with that. Offhand,I can only see the age&origin of man as a disagreement point,so I don't think anthropology is accurate on that.

Science doesn't agree with creation,but,it can't. Science does agree that the universe came into existence in a split second,as Genesis says it did. That's enough for me. IMO,the big bang corroborates Genesis.

Bible details an apparent frozen earth with no light and no heat for an indefinite era,so a global ice age makes sense.

Bible discusses huge animals with tails big enough to "knock down a tree" and it discusses "dragon" which may be our dinosaurs. I think there are less disagreements than you think.
Reply
#18
actually, the bible has often mentioned tribes of humans scattered all over the world long before the fall of Babylon.

hell, Adam and Eve's children found other human tribes out there when it was time for them to take on wives and husbands in order to repopulate. So if Adam and Eve were literally only the ones on earth, then how did those other tribes unrelated to Adam's clan come to be?

So it would seem to me that the bible was often written from the viewpoints of some humans who had contact with god.. and sometimes that can provide a narrow view.

to Adam and Eve, they might had felt like they were the only humans on earth.... when in reality there actually might had been other human pairs out there too. But they didn't know of those other human pairs at all... so they wrote/or told their children about being the first human pair in the world when that assumption had been false all along.

It would be like waking up in an suddenly abandoned city, assuming that some great disaster happened... and then you have this thought that maybe you could be the only person left in the world when you can't find anybody else.... can't reach anybody via a phone. When in reality there's actually other people in other states.

So if you were Adam or eve, and you never saw anybody else expect your spouse... you would just naturally assume that you two were the only ones who lived in Eden and then out there on earth. Who knows how big Eden or the earth really was at the time, and whenever it was big enough for a dozen pairs of humans to live separately from each other and never run into each other....

otherwise the human population would had actually been created by incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters... think about it.

So it stands to reason that like with Adam and Eve not being the first human pair in the world, Noah wasn't the only one who got the message to build a boat that would keep him and his family safe.

Maybe Eden, the whole apple bit and being expelled was actually just nothing but a metaphor for how humanity gained awareness of themselves as an people.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#19
AM,

I haven't read of other tribes in the days of Adam,but,I have read of "the land of Nod".

It does appear Yahweh created more than Adam and Eve,but,I don't see evidence of tribes across the earth from creation,Cain walked to Nod from wherever he was living .
Reply
#20
The Bible says that the Ark came to rest "in the mountains of Ararat" (note the plural). It sounds like Ararat was a region, not just one mountain. We cannot be sure that the mountain that today has the name "Mt. Ararat" is where the Ark came to rest. The likelihood is that it came to rest somewhere nearby. It probably did not come to rest on the peak of a mountain. More likely in a high mountain valley among several mountains.

The Genesis one creation account refers to waters that were above the atmosphere (Gen. 1:7). The KJV and NKJV refer to a "firmament that separated the waters, but the NASB, NIV, and other modern versions translates the word as "expanse." In the next verse, the firmament or expanse is called heaven. This heaven is where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). This must be the "first" heaven.

The Apostle Paul says he knew a man who was caught up in vision to the "third" heaven, where Paradise is (2 Corinthians 12:2). By process of elimination, the "second" heaven must be outer space, where the stars and planets are.

Any way, creationists have only speculated what the nature of the waters above the atmosphere might have been. The idea of a vapor canopy has been around for a long time, but most creationist scientists have moved away from this idea, and have suggested other possibilities.

The effects upon human longevity may be in some part due to improved shielding against solar and cosmic radiation the waters above the atmosphere would have provided. But my favorite theory is that the waters above the atmosphere would have increased the pressure of the atmosphere, so that at sea level, air pressure may have been two or three times what it is now. I think there are interesting indications that increasing air pressure might greatly increase human stamina, health, and speed healing. Rapidity in healing was observed in "Aqualab" test subjects who lived in underwater habitats for weeks at a time. Cuts were observed to heal in a few hours. Hyperbaric chambers are commonly used in medical treatment for various injuries, because the increased pressure (and increased oxygen content) seems to speed healing of many kinds of injuries.

The intriguing thing about this theory is that it is testable. It would be interesting to see what the effects upon longevity and vigor and stamina would be for various animals grown in large, pressurized terrariums. (I proposed this experiment over 30 years ago. I am still hoping someone may try it.) Maybe in the future, rich people might increase their lifespans up to tenfold by living in pressurized, underground habitats. They would have to decompress slowly like divers do if they ever had to come outside for a short time.

I wonder if brain function would increase in such habitats, measured by performance on tests. I wonder what musical instruments might sound like in pressurized atmosphere.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)