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.
Eusebius, It's funny, you seem to be under the impression your God is the right one. So do Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Romans, Buddhists, Sikhs.. I could go on.
They will all bow to Jesus when he returns.
Quote:
You are no wiser and no smarter than anyone because you have a blind faith in YOUR God.
Let's assume for a moment that the story of Noah's Ark as told by the Bible is true. This raises a couple of points:
-In one of the first replies to this thread Vizio claims he is hopeful but remains skeptical of the evidence presented. That is definitely the attitude with which it should be approached. That being said, it makes sense to approach the entire story of Noah and the ark the same way, rather than just this particular ark discovery.
-There have been a little over 950,000 animal species documented as of 2011 (8.74 Million Species on Earth : Discovery News). I would question the ability for all these animals to fit in the ark, maintain their normal, diets, to live peacefully, as well do other things necessary for survival.
If there was a flood, (assuming the youngearthers don't have much honest or at least non-biased reliability on this topic) I think its more likely that it was local major event, which there where many around that time described in other accounts. To those who lived at the time of the flood, the area they lived was "the world" so it may be another matter of perspective.
A quick note on that Northern Matt's use of that Bart Ehrman quote, yes Bart Ehrman may have said that, but he's also the same guy who wrote this book: http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exis.../dp/0062206443. Knowing him, Bart's quote was probably taken when he was describing why he is now an agnositic as far as believing Jesus was actually God, but I would have to do more research to verify that which I don't really have time for right now.
And Yes, the standards for accepting something in the bible as historical fact are much less than would be required in a court of law...but this is Ancient History we are talking about and as far as I know, they use the same standards of proof for the historical Jesus that they use for other ancient historical figures and this is way the majority of Historians believe he was actually a person whether divine or not.
Oh yeah, one more thing. I saw this amazing quote earlier and I forgot to post it:
"Our accounts of Alexander the Great come from three hundred or more years after his death, but we agree that he existed. Denying Jesus' historicity is being as exceptionalist as the most crazed fundamentalist"
Last edited by Jrhockney; 01-17-2014 at 01:47 PM..
If there was a flood, (assuming the youngearthers don't have much honest or at least non-biased reliability on this topic) I think its more likely that it was local major event, which there where many around that time described in other accounts. To those who lived at the time of the flood, the area they lived was "the world" so it may be another matter of perspective.
A quick note on that Northern Matt's use of that Bart Ehrman quote, yes Bart Ehrman may have said that, but he's also the same guy who wrote this book: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth: Bart D. Ehrman: 9780062206442: Amazon.com: Books. Knowing him, Bart's quote was probably taken when he was describing why he is now an agnositic as far as believing Jesus was actually God, but I would have to do more research to verify that which I don't really have time for right now.
And Yes, the standards for accepting something in the bible as historical fact are much less than would be required in a court of law...but this is Ancient History we are talking about and as far as I know, they use the same standards of proof for the historical Jesus that they use for other ancient historical figures and this is way the majority of Historians believe he was actually a person whether divine or not.
Oh yeah, one more thing. I saw this amazing quote earlier and I forgot to post it:
"Our accounts of Alexander the Great come from three hundred or more years after his death, but we agree that he existed. Denying Jesus' historicity is being as exceptionalist as the most crazed fundamentalist"
You are quite correct concerning Ehrman. The two videos posted above are one an advertisement concerning his new book about the historical Jesus, and two, a debate between him and another "Northern Matt" where he eats Matt alive---as a historian, of course. Ehrman is a historian and the gentleman putting up the debate is not.
Our Northern Matt is just as far out in left field regarding the historical Jesus. As Ehrman points out, no serious historian anywhere really doubts the existence of a historical Jesus. There is no more evidence for Julius Caeser, Cicero, or many other of the historical characters of that period than for Jesus--in fact, there is less evidence in some cases. So Northern Matt's real problem is that he is worried that there MAY have been a Jesus who was actually divine. In other words, his heart troubles him. If it did not, then he wouldn't engage in something fanciful, just as I would not engage in a debate about Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. It should be that far afield from him. Since it is not, it is that mysterious, unfathomable, spirit of God pulling at him which causes him to fight and deny even more. Think of the famous poem, The Hound of Heaven!
Whether Jesus was divine, of course, is wide open ground, and many historians, perhaps most, would question that with no more evidence to disprove than Christians have to prove.
If there was a flood, (assuming the youngearthers don't have much honest or at least non-biased reliability on this topic) I think its more likely that it was local major event, which there where many around that time described in other accounts. To those who lived at the time of the flood, the area they lived was "the world" so it may be another matter of perspective.
If we take Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, millions of years could have elapsed from when the world was created and the world became chaos and vacant and then God in 1:2 onward making the earth habitable again.
It does not make sense to me that God would have Noah take 100 years to build a massive ark in which to save his family and animals if the flood was to be in the Mesopotamian valley area. That area is only approximatel 200+ miles wide by around 500 miles long.
If the flood waters went so many feet above the mountains just in that area, the water would have to be global since there are no really tall mountains to the west of that area. Get it?
If it were just local to where Noah lived, why didn't God just have Noah take the animals a couple hundred miles to the east and over the mountains. That would only have taken a couple weeks at best.
If we take Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, millions of years could have elapsed from when the world was created and the world became chaos and vacant and then God in 1:2 onward making the earth habitable again.
It does not make sense to me that God would have Noah take 100 years to build a massive ark in which to save his family and animals if the flood was to be in the Mesopotamian valley area. That area is only approximatel 200+ miles wide by around 500 miles long.
If the flood waters went so many feet above the mountains just in that area, the water would have to be global since there are no really tall mountains to the west of that area. Get it?
If it were just local to where Noah lived, why didn't God just have Noah take the animals a couple hundred miles to the east and over the mountains. That would only have taken a couple weeks at best.
If we take Genesis 1:1 to 1:2, millions of years could have elapsed from when the world was created and the world became chaos and vacant and then God in 1:2 onward making the earth habitable again.
It does not make sense to me that God would have Noah take 100 years to build a massive ark in which to save his family and animals if the flood was to be in the Mesopotamian valley area. That area is only approximatel 200+ miles wide by around 500 miles long.
If the flood waters went so many feet above the mountains just in that area, the water would have to be global since there are no really tall mountains to the west of that area. Get it?
If it were just local to where Noah lived, why didn't God just have Noah take the animals a couple hundred miles to the east and over the mountains. That would only have taken a couple weeks at best.
I have read this a couple of times and I have to ask...
(a) are you totally off the wall and have presented this as supportive explanation for the Noah thing (as you used to) or
(b) have you finally come to your senses and are showing that the whole scenario is totally far - fetched (which is rather unlike you, but I swear that post only makes sense as raising insurmountable objections to the whole Noachian flood idea),
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-21-2014 at 11:03 AM..
Reason: adjustment of tone needed.
(a) No, I'm not totally off the wall. Just a little off the wall.
(b) I never knew I left my senses. That God would have Noah take 100 years to build a huge ark to save family and animals is absurd IF THE FLOOD WAS ONLY IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN AREA.
It only makes sense under a world-wide flood paradigm.
(a) No, I'm not totally off the wall. Just a little off the wall.
(b) I never knew I left my senses. That God would have Noah take 100 years to build a huge ark to save family and animals is absurd IF THE FLOOD WAS ONLY IN THE MESOPOTAMIAN AREA.
It only makes sense under a world-wide flood paradigm.
No, it makes no sense under any circumstance.
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.
