Summations Only

You should embark on a 10 volume telehone sized set of books listing the factors in the Hebrew bible which are not myth. This will give a percentage by ratio of the stats which cannot be questioned and were introduced to humanity for the first time as no other writings can or do. Then question if I am twisting things when listing actual verses and aligning them with independent historical and logical factors. I say, all writings and scriptures are not equal.

Its still the first recording of that mount in correct location; Armenia yet never existed or made such a recording in line with Genesis. The fundamental things apply; you ignore the fundamental and give no credit where it is due.

There is no credence in the call to prove a flood occured here. The issue gained momentum only because of its mis-reading of a global flood. Anti-creationists have a field day here, even making more ubsurd extensions of it. The Hebrew bible is the most authentic and reliable ancient writings of humanity's early history - this is unchanged.

quote:

---

By "anti-creationists" do you mean scientists, and others who rely on empirical and testable evidence instead of ancient tribal myths?

---

Einstein and Newton upheld creationism. I would check the science nobels for more enlightenment here.There is no concievable motive in the Noah report. It is pre-religions; myths and fables usually have an agenda. Its most controversial factor is hardly whether there was a flood, but that a claim is made God spoke to Noah. Yet that bypassed everyone as the more credible rejection in this story in the mis-directed zeal.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How about establishing that the God of the Israelites is very powerful? How about claiming that a local story about gods flooding the known world was actually done by the God of the Israelites?

---

Israelites yet never existed. Nor do the laws handed down later agree with mass killings ['Only the soul that commits a crime shall pay'].

quote:

---

It is pre-religions

​

There are religions that date older than any known copy of Genesis.

---

That's the point. The other religions did not report a global flood.

quote:

---

myths and fables usually have an agenda

​

Yes. The agenda is to show that Yahweh is powerful enough to kill us all. The agenda is to take the flood story that is prevalent throughout the near east and make it all down to Yahweh. Its agenda is to show that the descendants of Noah (and specifically Shem, the ancestor of Abraham) are especially blessed as being historically holy/pure/moral. Its agenda is to suggest that bad things happen because of bad behaviour courtesy of Yahweh.

---

But Israel was not given any special treatment; the advent of establishing liberty, inalienable human rights, laws and monotheism is not special treatment of any group. How about the smallest land and constant exiles and world hatred. How powerful is such a God?

quote:

---

Genesis is filled with agendas. The Flood story is not an exception, I'm afraid.

​

The question I'm forced to ask is. Is it your position that the claimed lack of agenda in Genesis is evidence that a flood happened and it happened in recent times? If so, please show your chain of reasoning that leads there.

​

I'll give it a go:

​

1. There is no evidence of an agenda in the flood account.
2. All false stories have an agenda.
3. Therefore, the flood account is not a false story.

​

I would disagree with both (1) and (2), and therefore argue that (3) has not been established.

---

I see no agenda in a flood story being false. I see the story embedded with loads of factual, historical marks - not seen in any other writings; not addressed in its negations. Its varied from head bashing deities battling for supremecy. I see the agenda not in the flood story.The only legitimate claim of anti-creationists is that this reported flood is described as God talking to Noah and prempting the flood - nothing else merits their charges in the text.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well, actually the OP was asking proponents of a global flood to show their evidence. Since you don't seem to be one

---

None have such evidence. They rely only on a mis-reading of selected verses and ignoring other selected and pivotal ones.Conclusion: the rejection is not of the text but shrouded in the premise of a God.

If someone says the world was destroyed 1,500 years ago - none would believe him. If that claim included a list of contemporary factors which were not possible to list after 1,500 years, and which turned out to be correct but impossible to derive from other sources - then we have a mysterious anomaly. In such a case one is incumbent not to reject the story, but to re-examine their reading of the text. Contemporary factors listed for the first time cannot be claimed as retrospective - those who do not understand this are not understading, or worse - what the report says; in fact they do not even go there.One would first have to check if, for example among other things, if the name Noah and those listed in his geneology, are authentic by scholars and experts in this field, recorded for the first time. One would have to check if there are any historical factors which are known to be false. Here, none have put anything on the table.

earliest copy of Genesis that we have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is a seasonal factor; the dates change as more relics pop up. King David was a myth 10 years ago; a billion today still claim the Jerusalem temple is a myth; Moses was a Muslim; etc. Do you have any evidence anything in the Noah story which can be disproved is disproved - such as historical factors? If not, the report is generally credible aside from a global flood.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nor do the laws handed down later agree with mass killings
I have no idea what relevance this has.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You inferred special treatment as the agenda here?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's the point. The other religions did not report a global flood.But they do report a flood that covered all the land (whatever that is) and they do discuss one man and his family being saved by divine intervention.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------'whatever that is' is the point here. You may reject the premise of a God - but not that the text is incorrect of a regional flood.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But Israel was not given any special treatmentI'm not suggesting it was given any special treatment, so I don't know why you say this. What I actually said was that the agenda is to show that the Ancestor of the Israelites was specially chosen for their moral superiority.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Moral superiority? A host of bad deeds are also listed, nor do the moral laws apply to Jews: the term Jews do not appear in the laws. Are you not confusing your bibles here about chosen by example [be a light'] and the chosen of 'exclusive kingdom keys' and 'no god but allah'? There is chosen and there is CHOSEN, no? Choose your facorite chosen and agenda before making such a claim as your reason of proof.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don't see any such factual historical marks. That's besides the point I was raising. Are you suggesting that the lack of an agenda is evidence in favour of the story? Even if we assume the story is true, it can still have an agenda.This is limited; all have agendas involuntarilly and generically. If the report has accuracy [truth] then this is a superfluous charge. The report is fantastically and astonishingly accurate aside from a global flood view; no ancient writings quite measure up here.

These stats are given. The region is well described as regional: nations and countries are listed as forthcoming around Mount Ararat. The bounderies cannot apply when countries were yet not relevent at such a period. Tasmaia yet never existed; of note is that incorrect nations of its contemporary period [e.g. Philistines; Romans; etc] are not listed. None have yet pointed out any historical errors in the report - incumbent here.

Ask your uni teacher to point out a historical error in the texts.

quote:

---

Where is Mt Ararat?

​

When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration"

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?

---

The location of Mount Ararat is given as in the region of numerous then existing nations like Egypt and Babylon [the text in the Noah story]; the first King is also given [Nimrod]; Mount Ararat is mentioned for the first time [not lifted from any other source]. It is precise enough for its period; Tasmania is not listed, nor are nations which emerged soon after the flood period [such as Moab and Medianite]. The duration of the flood is also given in the text. Its evidence is archeologically acceptable factors as the accurate listing of contemporary factors and cross-reference writings of other contemporary nations - proof this was not a global flood because those nations would not still be around to tell it. there is no credibility in ignoring such factors.

Does everyone understand that we have no history per se before such writings and its given datings of human history? Does a Proffessor know of a NAME older than that of Adam? Are these one a trillion co-incidences or a depiction of real human history? Is the premise, we had no writings before this period, a credible response? It begs the question, why did older and mightier nations not have writings older than precisely and fastediously before 6000? - yet an insignificant late comer in the ancient world have say so as a manifest and irrefutable fact? Is a NAME not recallable without writings? Were there no kings, cities, nations, wars, monuments in lands outside this region or anywhere else on the planet?Genesis says the earth is billions of years old, but that human speech is 6000 years. What evidences do we have to deny or reject this astonishing proposal? In fact I know of no proof which overturns it - does anyone?

I previous posted the references and verse details that Mount Ararat, mentioned for the first time in its correct geographical location, has nations such as Egypt, Nenveh and Babylon in the same Noah story. This gives the location. The dates are also given and accountable from the diarised Hebrew calendar which spans some 3000 years; dod and dob's of Noah are also given.

quote:

---

And that does not tell us shit about where Mt Ararat is.

---

Once more with feelings:Message 165:

quote:

---

Mount Ararat is mentioned as being in today's Middle-east by virtue of aligning this mount in the region of places like Ninveh [Babylon], Canaan [Israel] and Mizraim [Egypt]. It does not get better proven of specific continents. Such ancient aerial mapology is unseen anywhere else. Bullshit - but whose?

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Genesis Chapter 10
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.' 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah--the same is the great city.

---

quote:

---

We may not have written history,

---

Pls take back your 'may not' and put, Genesis is amazingly 100% correct!

quote:

---

but we have archaeology and a lot of other -ologies. And we can date human history far more accurately than tribal myths.

---

Pls retract and put instead, with all the ologies we still do not have a name older than Adam.

quote:

---

Adam is a tribal myth.

---

Pls retract: Adam is the oldest recorded tribal, mythical name.

quote:

---

Are these one a trillion co-incidences or a depiction of real human history?

​

They are myths.

---

Pls add: a myth which mysteriously aligns with the facts.

quote:

---

Is the premise, we had no writings before this period, a credible response?

​

No. There were a variety of picture writings that we have been unable to decipher.

---

The picture writings are not older than 6000; those which made such claims have been found to be bogus. Nor do we have cities, nations, wars, kings, pyramids, etc, etc.A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie.It begs the question, why did older and mightier nations not have writings older than precisely and fastediously before 6000? - yet an insignificant late comer in the ancient world have say so as a manifest and irrefutable fact? Is a NAME not recallable without writings? Were there no kings, cities, nations, wars, monuments in lands outside this region or anywhere else on the planet?Nonsense. Just word salad nonsense.Genesis says the earth is billions of years old, but that human speech is 6000 years. What evidences do we have to deny or reject this astonishing proposal? In fact I know of no proof which overturns it - does anyone?Genesis is wrong (again). Human speech can be tracked through the shape and position of a small bone in the throat. The origin of that bone can be traced back to about 530,000 years ago.Reference: Martnez I, Arsuaga JL, Quam R, Carretero JM, Gracia A, Rodrguez L, Human hyoid bones from the middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain), Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 118-124. PMID: 17804038You are long on tribal myth and speculation, and short on scientific evidence.Try again?