Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen? (translation, disciples, genesis)
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.
If the ocean basins were not present and the mountains not present, the PRESENT water on earth would cover the continents by 8,000 feet.
Where did they go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Now, in Noah's day the mountains may have only beeen a few hundred feet high. Subduct the continents and cause some rain for 40 days and nights and whalla, global flood. It doesn't take any magic.
Why not just say a water molecule was much larger in Noah's day and therefor took up more space. Thus making the flood plausible. That "idea" like yours holds as much water. Which is zero.
Anything to reinforce your belief in an infallible Jesus and Bible.
I though God told Noah how to build the Ark. Use a made up story as your debate point. Sad.
God told Noah the size of the ship, to pitch it within and without and to build nests in it and ventilation system.
Gen 6:14 Make for yourself an ark of sulphur wood. With nests shall you make the ark. And shelter it from the inside and from the outside with a sheltering coat.
Gen 6:15-16 And this is how you shall make the ark: Three hundred cubits is the length of the ark, and fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its rise. (16) Narrowing you shall make it from the middle, and to a cubit shall you finish it from above. And the opening of the ark you shall place in its side. With nether, second and third decks shall you make it.
Noah, with his superior ability and technology made the ark from those instructions.
I'm using an historical fact as my debate point. Happy.
Why not just say a water molecule was much larger in Noah's day and therefor took up more space. Thus making the flood plausible. That "idea" like yours holds as much water. Which is zero.
Anything to reinforce your belief in an infallible Jesus and Bible.
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.
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.
con·jec·ture [kuhn-jek-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
noun
1.
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
God told Noah the size of the ship, to pitch it within and without and to build nests in it and ventilation system.
Gen 6:14 Make for yourself an ark of sulphur wood. With nests shall you make the ark. And shelter it from the inside and from the outside with a sheltering coat.
Gen 6:15-16 And this is how you shall make the ark: Three hundred cubits is the length of the ark, and fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its rise. (16) Narrowing you shall make it from the middle, and to a cubit shall you finish it from above. And the opening of the ark you shall place in its side. With nether, second and third decks shall you make it.
Noah, with his superior ability and technology made the ark from those instructions.
I'm using an historical fact as my debate point. Happy.
What historical fact would that be?
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.
You're actually not using a "historical fact" as your "debate point". Sorry. You really should avoid such claims.
Actually, they were highly intelligent back then. I doubt you could build a wooden ark the size of a WWII aircraft carrier and make it work.
Some of them may have been highly intelligent. But they did not have the knowledge of science that we have today. It takes time for scientific progress to happen.
It's very easy to make up convincing sounding supernatural stories when the ability to verify their accuracy does not exist.
Hmm, let's see, whoppers said Jesus was wrong when He supposedly stated the world was going to end. When I pointed out to him that "world" is not in that verse properly translated he tells me he is well aware that "eon" or "age" is a good translation of it. But, instead of going along with what was good, he went along with what was bad anyway to try to make Jesus a liar. This is the same kind of arguing that has been going on here from you folks concerning the world-wide flood in Noah's day. You pick and choose that which will help support your agenda even if it is wrong.
#1 I didn't assume anything. I KNOW you used a bad translation and proved it. That is not an assumption.
#2 if you are limiting your translation for your exegesis EVEN IF YOU KNOW IT IS A WRONG TRANSLATION you are still wrong.
#3 There is no other verse in the New Testament where Jesus supposedly talks about "the end of the world." It is always about the end of this age.
#4 I don't think you are confused. I think you purposely misled to try to prove a point: to make Jesus look like a bumbling idiot.
No, you don't need a properly translated bible. You just need a poorly translated bible that you can use to make Jesus a liar. Good job!
Obviously your eschatology is based upon poor translations and it is those translations which are giving your problems.
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.....
Actually, they were highly intelligent back then. I doubt you could build a wooden ark the size of a WWII aircraft carrier and make it work.
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.
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.
