Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because one doesn't have to say the water molecule was much larger in Noah's day to arrive at the facts of a world-wide flood. One just needs the same amount of water present on the earth today. Keep it simple. Don't throw in stuff such as "why not" this or "why not" that.
I guess only you are allowed to do that with your IF the world was flat bull, huh?
Then we doubt that anyone could, especially back then. That is just one reason - another being lack of any good reason to give any credence to your mental morphing of anything we know about geology to try to make this myth work - why this particular Bible myth is not credible.
You stated: "we know about geology." I think you should state "some know about geology" because not all rational, Phd'd and the like share the "we" view of yours.
Just because you don't get what educated ones know about geology which proves a world-wide flood does not prove us wrong.
The myth is the one which says there was no world-wide flood.
In line with the previous poster's providing a definition, I give (from that Google thing):
Historical: a: Of or relating to the character of history. b: Based on or constituting factual material as distinct from legend or supposition.
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
So, historical fact would be something that has really occured in history and distinct from legend or supposition.
Right, that's why I say there really was a world-wide flood. It is
historical fact. Genesis was written as history, not just a pithy
story.
I never meant to get into a discussion over this with you - it was meant as a passing comment to those familiar with the subject. I guess I was incorrect in assuming that you had done your homework. Oh - who am I kidding? I don't know any Christian who actually investigates the Bible in-depth before deciding to become one. The latter comes first, the investigation (now prejudiced and biased) comes second.
I don't wish to focus on this, since it really doesn't have anything to do with Noah's Ark - except to point out that everyone else understood what I wrote just fine, and the current consensus among biblical scholars on this issue does NOT rest on a "bad translation".
Like most historians, I tend to start with what evidence we have concerning Jesus and his life, and then reach my conclusions. Your accusation that I'm doing the opposite to match a personal agenda is not accurate. A bad historian (or even, a theologian) would be someone who examined the evidence, and then rejected it because it clashed with their idiology. If anything, that is what you have been doing with this thread: you ASSUME that the Bible is literally true, and thus have spent this entire thread arguing for the historicity of the Bible's composite account of the ancient Near Eastern Flood Myth, even though mounds of evidence to the contrary have been presented. NOW who has an agenda?
Everyone has a bias. What matters is whether you allow that bias to influence the results you get from your evidence, or to what degree you allow your results to be biased. I think it's pretty clear what agenda you have, Eusebius.
You keep using phrases such as "I KNOW" and other absolutes. No matter how much you disagree with what I wrote - none of that is based on a bad translation. Either you are not understanding me properly, or you are just letting your personal agenda and bias (that the eschaton MUST be in the future, because it hasn't happend yet yuk yuk!) get in the way of Jesus' words.
But as I said - don't let me convince you of it. Just read ANY modern, competent treatment of the subject. Don't tell me - the majority of the world's biblical scholars are using "bad translations"? Even though they don't need to rely on a translation, and never would when interpreting. Who in their right mind, if privvy to the original languages, would use an English translation to argue from? Not any scholars I have known. So - your insistence on "bad translation" means absolutely nothing. It's a common cry from fundamentalists, and it's a poor common cry. Technically, Eusebius, ALL translations are "bad" in the area of how accurately they are able to reproduce a foreign language's ideas, an ancient culture's way of thinking, etc.- some are just better than others.
I don't know why you think I'm trying to portray Jesus as a "bumbling idiot"? Why? I never said that. A person can be mistaken and NOT be a "bumbling idiot", ya' know. For example - I haven't called you a "bumbling idiot" - even though this thread has shown that virtually every post of yours has been mistaken. I haven't assumed you are stupid, simply because none of your arguments have proven persuasive to modern, rational individuals. It IS possible to be a Christian, and NOT be a literalist.....
Saying I am biased does not prove Jesus got it wrong.
If the world's biblical scholars are quoting a bible which says "end of the world" then, yes, they are using "bad translations."
Whether the disciples said "world" or "age" in Matthew 24:3 the point is that Jesus ran a laundry list of things which had to occur prior to the ending of this current eon/age in chapters 24 and 25. Those events have not occurred yet. Therefore Jesus was not mistaken, no matter how badly you want Him to be due to YOUR bias.
I am a believer who believes "literal when possible, figurative when not." For instance, in Revelation a literal lamb does not really inhabit the throne anymore than a literal sword comes flying out of Jesus' mouth.
Extensive marine engineering studies completed by Christian posters here... unearthed at last!
One can only imagine a wooden WW-II sized aircraft carrier sized powerless, unsteerable, one-window wonder assembled with what again? Oh yeah: Pitch as it's sole hold-together material, withstanding any sort of full-on oceanic storm, complete with the 40 gallons/square foot/minute downpour, and coupled with the swirling undercurrents (by Eusebius' own proclamation...) happening under it, keeping it within convenient re-landing range of Ararat...
...and noting of course what the actual, historically provable [but much smaller and thus stronger on a unit basis...] Mayflower was held together with…
....(look carefully now, gent;le and objective readers... BOLTS! OMG, huh? Steel BOLTS in a constant array! STEEL! And even then, they wisely and assiduously avoided any storms, and were only afloat for a mere... what was it? 66 days? ≈2 months, not 18?
" The ship's dimensions are unknown but estimates based on its load weight and the typical size of 180-ton merchant ships of its day suggest a length of 90–110 feet (27.4–33.5 m) and a width of about 25 feet (7.6 m).[9]"
Note the fact that it did in fact suffer some major storm-caused structural damage which the passengers, not wanting to die at sea fro no good reason, repaired with what was it? Metal bolts and some spare wooden beams...
And they also didn't have to care for nor transport, several million species, what with them danged "No Evolvin' Allowed, EVER!" warning signs at the voyage's end...
And many of them got seriously ill.... plus, a big additional factor as to their ultimate survival:
The Mayflower travelers did not have to deal with large teams of marauding T-Rex's or velociraptors (or any of the other 3,000+ species of dinosaurs, in sufficient numbers to asume possible reproduction post-flood (so about 200 of each, including both necessary genders..., minimum...) hunting actively day and night thru-out the ship for food and water, just to barely stay alive....
(check out that photo (scroll down a bit) of the dino-foot being unearthed. Obviousy it was pre-planted there by us vicious, lying scientists...)
Or this partial list... he comes up with 426 genera, not species, but just genera. You DO know the diff, right, Eusebius? I mean, you regularly trot out all the other facts you're so well-read up on and aware of...
Wow! This script you have come up with for an Avatar-like Sci-Fi movie! "The Miracle of the Unsinkable, Dino-crowded Ark!" should be a quick sell in Hollywood Eusebius! Lots of suspension of disbelief in it for sure! Plus... lots of opps for good 3-D CGI and flying unsinkable pitch-sustained boats surviving massive full-on broadside oceanic wave impacts (which is precisely what all ships do when unsteerable and confronted with big winds and waves... You do know that from your extensive marine engineering studies, right?)
Go for it, man! I mean... you certainly have the creative, if boldly unscientific, mind for it.
Truly, that Noah was an astounding marine and materials science engineer. He didn't even have Devcon Liquid Titanium, which I use all the time! (He certainly makes mincemeat of all my time in the mechanical engineering dept!)
One can only imagine a wooden WW-II sized aircraft carrier sized powerless, unsteerable, one-window wonder assembled with what again? Oh yeah: Pitch as it's sole hold-together material,
See kids, this is what I mean by misrepresenting one's opponent with disinformation.
Notice rifleman has made it look like I believe that pitch is the sole hold-together material for the ark. That is a straw man and a misrepresentation of my beliefs. I never stated that. It is obvious all rifleman can do it resort to this sort of posting in order to try, hopelessly try to make my side look foolish.
Just because God told Noah to put pitch on the inside and outside of the ark does not mean that is some sort of glue that held the ark together. It was meant to water proof the ark, not hold it together. Rifleman, you keep getting caught in these lies. It proves you are not capable of proper correspondence on these boards.
Just because the more modern day ship builders cannot build their ships to withstand storms like Noah built his ark does not mean Noah did not build his ark to the dimensions given.
What do you mean "
We're all agreeing at the end of the day. No - there wasn't a huge global flood."?
That's just it, we are not all agreeing.
Did it happen? Of course it happened. Where have you been?
See kids, this is what I mean by misrepresenting one's opponent with disinformation.
Notice rifleman has made it look like I believe that pitch is the sole hold-together material for the ark. That is a straw man and a misrepresentation of my beliefs. I never stated that. It is obvious all rifleman can do it resort to this sort of posting in order to try, hopelessly try to make my side look foolish.
Just because God told Noah to put pitch on the inside and outside of the ark does not mean that is some sort of glue that held the ark together. It was meant to water proof the ark, not hold it together. Rifleman, you keep getting caught in these lies. It proves you are not capable of proper correspondence on these boards.
Rifleman needs no help to make your side look foolish...You are doing a fine job of that all on your own.
Rifleman needs no help to make your side look foolish...You are doing a fine job of that all on your own.
Do you believe it is O.K. for rifleman to lie and misrepresent my position?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Extensive marine engineering studies completed by Christian posters here... unearthed at last!
