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.
Lacking of the technical details don't matter to the spirituality, do they?
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.
The GOD, who you described as a strayed dog, said otherwise of that area in the past time. It was a place liken Eden, recording by the account with a bunch god fearing guys who had no ideas on what they were writting.
The Bible did not mention the Americas, too. How did it got here? Strange. Very very strange.
Lacking of the technical details don't matter to the spirituality, do they?
Well, yes and no. 'Spirituality' covers an awfully wide range of meanings, but let's say that 'belief in the Bible as confirmation of the existence of God' is probably the nearest thing here. God-faith, in fact.
ln a way Technical details don't make any difference to faith, but you see what's coming, can't you .
They ought to, if Faith cared about evidence as a guide to whether beliefs were sound or not. But is fact it only cares about evidence that supports the belief. It dismisses evidence that doesn't. So really yes, the evidential details don't make any difference to the faith, even though they really ought to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpcu12345
The GOD, who you described as a strayed dog, said otherwise of that area in the past time. It was a place liken Eden, recording by the account with a bunch god fearing guys who had no ideas on what they were writting.
The Bible did not mention the Americas, too. How did it got here? Strange. Very very strange.
If I follow you correctly, it isn't strange at all. The guys who wrote the Bible were writing about the world they knew. The writers of the OT wrote about a world that was pretty much Egypt and the horn of Africa, the middle east and Mesopotamia, the Aegean.
The NT writers knew of the Roman world, too, but it was still flat and surrounded by mountains with a crystal dome over it with God's throne perched in the top. And none of them knew about America.
If the Bible did mention the "..land across the sea where the builders of Ziggurats and pyramids slaughter thousands to their false gods". it would be held up as proof positive that the Bible was delivered by God (1) and we skeptics would have a tough time explaining that.
But it isn't there and the believers ought to have a tough time explaining that. Which is probably why they don't.
(1) which is why we get efforts to discover Scientific Truths in the Bible by ferreting out vague resemblances of Poetic Biblical passages to facts that science has discovered.
I'm still luvvin' it here.
P.s I missed this one last night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Well until modern times the Ark was the largest vessel ever built and the dimensions are classic and just what is needed....
If it was 'just what was needed', why is it necessary to fiddle the species -numbers by trying to select juveniles to reduce the size, inventing 'kinds' to cut the number of species down drastically and think up various ideas like leaving the sea dwellers in the sea (in fact fish, not just whales and dolphins, would have to be on the Ark, too as the massed fossils of fish pointed out as evidence of the Flood makes it clear it didn't the fish stock any good)and have all the time -wasting and fiddly insects and slugs float it out on vegetation mats?
It is because the Ark, big -too big to be seaworthy - as it was, clearly is not now what was needed, though back in 1,000 B.c when Genesis was written, it probably looked like it was.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-21-2015 at 02:50 AM..
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),
Quote:
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 would only be 40,000 cu m in volume if the ark was a giant rectangular barge. If we pretend that it was real and was actually built like a ship it would have more hull form. It would probably be more like 25,000 to 30,000 cu m with the total dimensions you described.
Quote:
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.
This again seems to be assuming that the ark would be a giant rectangle. Ships have hull form and shape, even the most boxy bulk carriers. The 133.5m by 22.3m by 13.4m dimensions are supposedly the overall size of the ark. So even if it were a rectanglular prism it would still only displace 40,000 cu m of water is the entire ark was submerged (it sinks).
So lets assume that of the 13.5m in height about 10 meters was submerged. We'll leave the submerged length and breadth the same even though it would probably be less. Now assume the curvature was somewhere between a modern cargo ship and a bulk carrier giving it a block coefficient of 0.7. (133.5 x 22.3 x 10 x 0.7) = 20,839 cu m.
The Titanic displaced 51,000 cu m. so the ark given the overall dimensions you stated would be less than half the Titanic in displacement. Makes sense considering it's stated as being about half the length. I don't think this is close to large enough to hold 2 of every enimal plus food and potable water. Not to mention trying to sail it without proper propulsion.
Quote:
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.
Another measurement based on a rectangular prisim. This assumes throughout the height of the ark it remains 133.5. long and 22.3m wide. There's a reason you see zero ocean sailing vessels that look like boxes. Let's pretend it was 8,900 sq m. So Noah fit 2 of every animal on Earth plus drinking water and food in a space that's smaller than your average Wal-Mart.
It seems like whoever came up with this didn't really know much about ships and decided to throw some numbers together to make it look convincing to anyone barely glancing over it.
It would only be 40,000 cu m in volume if the ark was a giant rectangular barge. If we pretend that it was real and was actually built like a ship it would have more hull form. It would probably be more like 25,000 to 30,000 cu m with the total dimensions you described.
This again seems to be assuming that the ark would be a giant rectangle. Ships have hull form and shape, even the most boxy bulk carriers. The 133.5m by 22.3m by 13.4m dimensions are supposedly the overall size of the ark. So even if it were a rectanglular prism it would still only displace 40,000 cu m of water is the entire ark was submerged (it sinks).
So lets assume that of the 13.5m in height about 10 meters was submerged. We'll leave the submerged length and breadth the same even though it would probably be less. Now assume the curvature was somewhere between a modern cargo ship and a bulk carrier giving it a block coefficient of 0.7. (133.5 x 22.3 x 10 x 0.7) = 20,839 cu m.
The Titanic displaced 51,000 cu m. so the ark given the overall dimensions you stated would be less than half the Titanic in displacement. Makes sense considering it's stated as being about half the length. I don't think this is close to large enough to hold 2 of every enimal plus food and potable water. Not to mention trying to sail it without proper propulsion.
Another measurement based on a rectangular prisim. This assumes throughout the height of the ark it remains 133.5. long and 22.3m wide. There's a reason you see zero ocean sailing vessels that look like boxes. Let's pretend it was 8,900 sq m. So Noah fit 2 of every animal on Earth plus drinking water and food in a space that's smaller than your average Wal-Mart.
It seems like whoever came up with this didn't really know much about ships and decided to throw some numbers together to make it look convincing to anyone barely glancing over it.
The Ark was a big rectangular box. That is what "Ark" means.
Now a lot of speculation is out there, from ship shaped to round. They all ignore the word meaning and use to promote their own pet theories.
Even today cargo ships are being built with less of a "V" shape to allow for more cargo.
Unlike Emma Mærsk's more typical V-shaped hull which limits container capacity towards the bottom of the 'V' in the cargo holds, the hull of the Triple-E is more like a U-shape. An additional row of containers was added to the Triple-E as well, giving it 23 rows across its width, compared to Emma's 22. The more spacious hull and extra row provides additional capacity for 1,500 containers.
Lacking of the technical details don't matter to the spirituality, do they?
Hebrews 11:6 - without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
So yes - understanding that faith pleases God rather than proof, we don't have all of the technical details. Some people lived at the time Christ was raised from the dead, and still chose not to believe. So technical details may not matter all that much either.
Now a lot of speculation is out there, from ship shaped to round. They all ignore the word meaning and use to promote their own pet theories.
Even today cargo ships are being built with less of a "V" shape to allow for more cargo.
Unlike Emma Mærsk's more typical V-shaped hull which limits container capacity towards the bottom of the 'V' in the cargo holds, the hull of the Triple-E is more like a U-shape. An additional row of containers was added to the Triple-E as well, giving it 23 rows across its width, compared to Emma's 22. The more spacious hull and extra row provides additional capacity for 1,500 containers.
No "V" hull shape was needed and a box like shape floats quite well. That is all it had to do as it had nowhere to go.
Pretend all you want but it was way big enough and water? well it rained for a long time and the water around Noah would be fresh.
The Ark was huge. More than enough room.
Detractors just have no clue.
You said is was based on a 6 to 1 ratio of length to breadth based on modern naval architects, of which I happen to be one. We use 6 to 1 commonly for seakeeping purposes and ability to achieve higher speeds. Boxy barges rarely stick to the same propostions. So he built the ark as a box using a 6 to 1 ratio because he knew naval architects would apply this to totally different designs in the future. Considering it's now a box it should no longer have to worry about saving on fuel consumption but let's pretend it is anyway.
It would still not displace 40,000 cu m of water even with a block coefficient of 1.0 (full rectangle) because presumably the ark needs freeboard and isn't a submarine. You don't have to explain "V shape" hulls to me as I get paid to help design and engineer ships every day. We call that deadrise, flare, angles of entry or just hull form to be general. The reason I assumed a block coefficient of 0.7 is because that's between a cargo ship and a bulker, which is even less of a "V shape". A cargo ship would be more like 0.6.
I guess I figured he would want a somewhat efficient hull form so he could navigate the seas and drop off all the animals to where they live today but evidently kangaroos must be fantastic swimmers.
But let's even pretend Noah didn't want to be able to nagivate at all in his wooden box submarine floating in purely fresh water. Did he bring spare animals to feed the carnivores? what % of a Wal-Mart size space do you think he needed for food? You can toss out at least 800 sq m of internal volume taken up by structural components alone. Actually probably more as 10% volume is based on steel structure which would take up considerable less room than wood.
Well, yes and no. 'Spirituality' covers an awfully wide range of meanings, but let's say that 'belief in the Bible as confirmation of the existence of God' is probably the nearest thing here. God-faith, in fact.
ln a way Technical details don't make any difference to faith, but you see what's coming, can't you .
They ought to, if Faith cared about evidence as a guide to whether beliefs were sound or not. But is fact it only cares about evidence that supports the belief. It dismisses evidence that doesn't. So really yes, the evidential details don't make any difference to the faith, even though they really ought to.
If I follow you correctly, it isn't strange at all. The guys who wrote the Bible were writing about the world they knew. The writers of the OT wrote about a world that was pretty much Egypt and the horn of Africa, the middle east and Mesopotamia, the Aegean.
The NT writers knew of the Roman world, too, but it was still flat and surrounded by mountains with a crystal dome over it with God's throne perched in the top. And none of them knew about America.
If the Bible did mention the "..land across the sea where the builders of Ziggurats and pyramids slaughter thousands to their false gods". it would be held up as proof positive that the Bible was delivered by God (1) and we skeptics would have a tough time explaining that.
But it isn't there and the believers ought to have a tough time explaining that. Which is probably why they don't.
(1) which is why we get efforts to discover Scientific Truths in the Bible by ferreting out vague resemblances of Poetic Biblical passages to facts that science has discovered.
I'm still luvvin' it here.
P.s I missed this one last night.
This religion of the Jews doesn't really work in the way that you require, because the uniqueness of this god amongst the others gods.
The origin of GOD is unknown to us. But the Book does talk about its natures in confusing ways to the people. To what intents, I leave them to your imaginations.
The Book does reveal some knowledges that were either lost or should have not been in those times. Therefore, if you think carefully, the supreme power that was behind it.
If you do not trust in GOD the MOST HIGH, there came an visible one for you. And it is called the Christianity now.
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.
Or maybe God in his infinite wisdom knew that including such detail would not sway the minds of those who chose to reject Him. After all, look how quickly atheists dismiss bible archaeology. You would simply claim that the stories were invented around the artifacts or discoveries. Also the Garden of Eden most certainly wouldn't exist anymore after sin brought death into this world and the Great Flood transformed it.
The Bible was written in way that it can hold spiritual truths that are relevant to all generations. The Bible never ages and that reason alone is just one to sway me towards God.
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.
.
