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.
I am an atheist for many reasons but one of the main reasons why I consider the Bible to be man made is the glaring lack of details in the Bible of what most Christians I assume would consider to be important events and places. God apparently in his infinite wisdom does not give us the exact locations in latitude and longitude of the Garden of Eden, where Noah's Ark landed, where Jesus was hung on a cross and where exactly is Jesus's tomb among other things. I for one don't believe any of it of course. If God could explain in more scientific / engineering details how all those animals fit on an ark and were kept alive, etc., I might be swayed in that direction. I could go on but I will let others write now.
If God could explain in more scientific / engineering details how all those animals fit on an ark and were kept alive, etc., I might be swayed in that direction. I could go on but I will let others write now.
Maybe god didn't give a lot of detail but if that's what you want, search the name Eusebius and Noah's Ark.
Throw in freeze dried food .
(Sorry...at this point, to you, it's an inside joke for those that have read so many of his explanations )
There are several threads with Noah's Ark in the title but here's one for you to start with Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen?
Yeah, I tend to agree. What might seem like a small thing to others can be a game-breaker for me. One such example is how the dreaded Pharaoh of Egypt is never identified despite his prominence and stature. Other kings and leaders are identified by name, but not Pharaoh.
The thing is, that is how fairy tales are written in order to keep them "timeless."
Another interesting detail issue is Heaven and Hell.
Hell is described in fairly good detail. The Bible doesn't go on and on about it, but you know what Hell is going to be like. Heaven, on the other hand, is vague and amorphous and lacks any real specifics. Sure, there is no pain, sickness, or death -- that sort of thing -- and you get some gold streets, but that's the imaginings of a primitive people.
Heaven's lack of detail is an important clue. If you're a human writing the Bible, it's super-easy to come up with a place where NO one would want to go. I've yet to meet anyone, for example, who loves being burnt alive and just can't wait to immolate himself with a can of gas and a pack of matches. Fire is a primal fear so everyone would be afraid of being burned. Heaven, on the other hand, would be too individualized. You can't describe Heaven in too much detail lest you risk describing a place where some folks wouldn't want to go.
Heaven is often a point of contention among atheists because there is the question of what is allowed in Heaven and how much of "me" will there be if I go there. Streets made of gold doesn't mean squat to me. But can I still listen to my 80's metal bands in Heaven? Or will I have to sit around for eternity listening to nothing but hymns? Those kinds of things are surprisingly important when you're talking about Heaven -- a longing for something you cannot do would make Heaven imperfect yet, to remove that longing so you adjust well to paradise is fundamentally altering who we are.
So Heaven is given very little coverage.
One of the biggest clues to me, anyhow, is the extremely limited scope of God. Strange, I think, how God is only known in places where there are Hebrews. That's why I'm always calling the Biblegod a "desert tribal god" because that's all he ever was.
If Yahweh was ever meant to be MY God, then he wouldn't have simply followed the Hebrews around like a stray dog -- and then wait another thousand years to send us Jesus. If Yahweh loved us all, as we are so often reminded, then God would have been revealed to the entire world, not just to some upstart little tribe in the wastelands of the Middle East.
I am an atheist for many reasons but one of the main reasons why I consider the Bible to be man made is the glaring lack of details in the Bible of what most Christians I assume would consider to be important events and places. God apparently in his infinite wisdom does not give us the exact locations in latitude and longitude of the Garden of Eden, where Noah's Ark landed, where Jesus was hung on a cross and where exactly is Jesus's tomb among other things. I for one don't believe any of it of course. If God could explain in more scientific / engineering details how all those animals fit on an ark and were kept alive, etc., I might be swayed in that direction. I could go on but I will let others write now.
yes, by design. They excepted us to grow up in 1500 years. more proof that we should never under estimate stupid. It's like handing a little boy a gi Joe figure. who would of expected they would use it as a sword and hit his friend over the head.
Most of the stories in the Bible defy any sort of credibility. I think people who believe that book to be literally true are very gullible. Most people who call themselves Christians are not Biblical literalists, it is the more extreme ones who are, imo.
Most of the stories in the Bible defy any sort of credibility. I think people who believe that book to be literally true are very gullible. Most people who call themselves Christians are not Biblical literalists, it is the more extreme ones who are, imo.
If we don't believe, we are not Christian. If we believe, we're gullible. Talk about a no win situation...
Heaven's lack of detail is an important clue. If you're a human writing the Bible, it's super-easy to come up with a place where NO one would want to go. I've yet to meet anyone, for example, who loves being burnt alive and just can't wait to immolate himself with a can of gas and a pack of matches. Fire is a primal fear so everyone would be afraid of being burned. Heaven, on the other hand, would be too individualized. You can't describe Heaven in too much detail lest you risk describing a place where some folks wouldn't want to go.
The Bible's enduring appeal is its ability to seemingly confirm whatever your thoughts or desires are. Nowhere is this truer than concerning heaven. The streets of gold thing, a dwelling for everyone, that's universal; everyone wants all their needs met and it's no different than the New Deal's promise of a "chicken in every pot". But the rest is about as non-specific, subjective and emotional as it gets. God will dry every tear -- how poetic. Mommy will kiss evwy boo-boo and make it aww bettah. What is more primal than that?
The biggest problem for me is that if god can magically fix everything about my existence, the people I care about, etc., in the sweet by-and-by, then he is capable of having done it in the first place, in the here and now ... and this tells me everything I need to know about how much he actually cares about such things.
I am an atheist for many reasons but one of the main reasons why I consider the Bible to be man made is the glaring lack of details in the Bible of what most Christians I assume would consider to be important events and places. God apparently in his infinite wisdom does not give us the exact locations in latitude and longitude of the Garden of Eden, where Noah's Ark landed, where Jesus was hung on a cross and where exactly is Jesus's tomb among other things. I for one don't believe any of it of course. If God could explain in more scientific / engineering details how all those animals fit on an ark and were kept alive, etc., I might be swayed in that direction. I could go on but I will let others write now.
Well until modern times the Ark was the largest vessel ever built and the dimensions are classic and just what is needed.
Next the Ark did not even need to take mature animals on as they were in it for a year. So a pair of wolves could have produced all the dogs that now exist as all dogs are variations of a wolf.
Ditto every other kind. Noah did not need to take millions of animals on, just a pair (of unclean, as 7 of the clean were taken on) to allow for all the variety as we have today. The Ark was so big, enough food would be easy to take as they were all vegetarians then. It was also square as it did not need to be steered so it was VERY large and had 3 decks.
Here is some info on it:
In size the ark was 300 cubits long , 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
Well until modern times the Ark was the largest vessel ever built and the dimensions are classic and just what is needed.
Next the Ark did not even need to take mature animals on as they were in it for a year. So a pair of wolves could have produced all the dogs that now exist as all dogs are variations of a wolf.
Ditto every other kind. Noah did not need to take millions of animals on, just a pair (of unclean, as 7 of the clean were taken on) to allow for all the variety as we have today. The Ark was so big, enough food would be easy to take as they were all vegetarians then. It was also square as it did not need to be steered so it was VERY large and had 3 decks.
Here is some info on it:
In size the ark was 300 cubits long , 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
And perhaps more relevant to the 'Noah's math' thread.
However, not to seem evasive, it is possible to make the Ark look feasible by pointing out how big it was (which, without iron framing, would have made it unseaworthy) and, if even then it wouldn't contain all the species, reduce the number by inventing 'kinds' (singularly NOT found in the fossil record) that would magically evolve after the flood to produce all of evolution in a thousand years or so. Though that advantage is nullified by dinosaurs also having to be on the ark (1). Juveniles or not (eggs don't march), they still have to be housed and fed.
The various 'Noah' threads show our pal Eusebius to be the best ever apologist for Noah's flood. His inflating mountains to turn the existing flood water into the present oceans is positively brilliant. But what knocks the story on the head, never mind the impressive figures that Expat produces, is that there is nothing to eat after the flood. Nothing. Not even Eusebius at his brilliant best (2) is able to produce more than a couple of inches of grass for some of the grazers in a month. And then, nothing. Even if the dinosaurs, having got tired of rotting corpses, hadn't snacked all of creation out of existence.
(1) because of the footprints of dinosaur herds in the supposed flood levels, which forced Creationism to have them on the Ark or have the 'flood strata' totally debunked.
(2) I should say that he seems to have accepted one rule - no magic wands. Because to miraculously produce food in a devastated world makes the whole Flood and Ark pointless. Just do the whole job with a miracle.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-20-2015 at 08:03 PM..
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.
