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.
From reading past C-D R&P sub-fora, it's obvious that a number of fundamentalist Christians absolutely believe in the literal bible. Included are all of the bible's gloriously magic stories, like a completely inundating global fludd, and Noah beckoning two of each of all the world's animals onto his little wooden unpowered Ark in order to re-populate earth after the salty fludd waters subside.
Who here believes this?
(PS: This will be a short thread, I promise!)
More likely, you have an isolated event with Noah and company starting out somewhere like part of Iceland or Australia or New Zealand or America. You could have a massive deluge of rain in tandem with a massive tsunami that would "cover the whole earth" -- the whole earth as far as they knew it. The gather up as many animals as possible and a mega-tsunami event carries them from wherever they started to the Middle East. The deluge event is written into multiple Mesopotamian mythologies. A recurring theme like that tends to have a common source. Noah's flood certainly shows up in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.
One problem with taking the account too literally is geography. We have a brief sketch of the lay of the land where Adam and Eve start -- so the same place that Noah would have lived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 2
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia [the Hebrew here is Cush which is used in OT to reference the whole of Africa, often specifying black Africa].
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
New translations tend to like to clean up the mess here, inserting the Tigris when the Tigris just isn't there. And you have this river that supposed finds its way from somewhere in Africa and joins up with the Euphrates River. Pious explanations try to say that "there's some other Land of Cush somewhere in Mesopotamia." The geography described here still wouldn't quite make sense though. What they come up with looks like this:
Trouble is, that doesn't even remotely resemble the Euphrates River Basin:
The more likely explanation: Noah was relocated from somewhere else. Somewhere with a sizable river that divides into four major tributaries, all in fairly close proximity. Noah and company probably just applied familiar names to the rivers and lands when they landed in the Middle East. This would also explain why he sees nothing but water for such a long time.
From a quick search and looking over some river basins all over the world, the best candidates that I found that resemble what Genesis is describing:
The Murray River (Australia)
The Mississippi
The Amazon
Could be somewhere else entirely. I didn't explore all possible options. But that gives you a few good possible options. Anyways, that's how I see it. Noah's flood was a isolated event. It just didn't seem isolated to Noah because the "whole earth" insofar as he knew it really was flooded.
I think that was an attempt to claim that because Scientist Richie wouldn't diddle on internet forums, no scientist would diddle on internet forums. Thus no one on this thread could be a scientist.
It tells us something about Scientist Richie. Nothing else.
Ah yes... the logic of the damned shows it's hugely illiterate face one more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
I am one semester away from a degree in environmental science, so he is dead wrong there .
Or this one, shown above...
"Thus no one on this thread could be a scientist. "
And yet, professionally I am a.. well you know....
(PS: I love those self-assured "thus" or "therefore" self-assured skip-over-the-truth descriptors that the mentally pre-determined pro-Christians use so often in utterly daft defenses of their nutball and logically indefensible ideas.)
Could be somewhere else entirely. I didn't explore all possible options. But that gives you a few good possible options. Anyways, that's how I see it. Noah's flood was a isolated event. It just didn't seem isolated to Noah because the "whole earth" insofar as he knew it really was flooded.
That was the most convoluted work of nonsense outside of the Bible itself.
That was the most convoluted work of nonsense outside of the Bible itself.
Wait a minute...I read about that...That the Black Sea are flooded...They found whole towns with buildings and streets at the bottom indicating that the shoreline had changed suddenly...The bottom of the lake is fresh water and top is salt water, or vise versa...And that the Med was dry dotted with salt water pools...
Ah yes... the logic of the damned shows it's hugely illiterate face one more time.
Or this one, shown above...
"Thus no one on this thread could be a scientist. "
And yet, professionally I am a.. well you know....
(PS: I love those self-assured "thus" or "therefore" self-assured skip-over-the-truth descriptors that the mentally pre-determined pro-Christians use so often in utterly daft defenses of their nutball and logically indefensible ideas.)
Christians are SO terrified, it's frightening!
One semester away, huh?....So you are not a scientist yet?...
More likely, you have an isolated event with Noah and company starting out somewhere like part of Iceland or Australia or New Zealand or America. You could have a massive deluge of rain in tandem with a massive tsunami that would "cover the whole earth" -- the whole earth as far as they knew it. The gather up as many animals as possible and a mega-tsunami event carries them from wherever they started to the Middle East. The deluge event is written into multiple Mesopotamian mythologies. A recurring theme like that tends to have a common source. Noah's flood certainly shows up in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example.
One problem with taking the account too literally is geography. We have a brief sketch of the lay of the land where Adam and Eve start -- so the same place that Noah would have lived.
New translations tend to like to clean up the mess here, inserting the Tigris when the Tigris just isn't there. And you have this river that supposed finds its way from somewhere in Africa and joins up with the Euphrates River. Pious explanations try to say that "there's some other Land of Cush somewhere in Mesopotamia." The geography described here still wouldn't quite make sense though. What they come up with looks like this:
Trouble is, that doesn't even remotely resemble the Euphrates River Basin:
The more likely explanation: Noah was relocated from somewhere else. Somewhere with a sizable river that divides into four major tributaries, all in fairly close proximity. Noah and company probably just applied familiar names to the rivers and lands when they landed in the Middle East. This would also explain why he sees nothing but water for such a long time.
From a quick search and looking over some river basins all over the world, the best candidates that I found that resemble what Genesis is describing:
The Murray River (Australia)
The Mississippi
The Amazon
Could be somewhere else entirely. I didn't explore all possible options. But that gives you a few good possible options. Anyways, that's how I see it. Noah's flood was a isolated event. It just didn't seem isolated to Noah because the "whole earth" insofar as he knew it really was flooded.
I read something awhile ago that puts Eden in the Amazon rainforest....
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
"Well, Rife, they found the Aktual ark up on Ararat. Not that Rock outcrop of Wyatts, but the one the Chinese missionary expedition found. Can't argue with the facts, can you?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounds Complete
That isn't even the least bit true. It is, shall I say, a LIE.
It's OK, Rounds. My tongue was so far in my cheek that I don't blame you for taking it at face value. Most here, as Rifleman saithed, know my position on the matter, which is pretty much as you said - the NAMI Ark claim is looking highly suspicious these days.
Keep on posting.
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.
.
Right here, shaking in my very boots!
.
My tongue was so far in my cheek that I don't blame you for taking it at face value. Most here, as Rifleman saithed, know my position on the matter, which is pretty much as you said - the NAMI Ark claim is looking highly suspicious these days. 
