|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a recent flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The term 'or' is not credible here; more precise infrmation is already contained in the texts - namely surrounding nations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but that is simply bullshit, and tells us nothing. To say that Mt Ararat is between Babylon and Egypt is simply nonsense if it is meant to give us a location. It is also impossible to have a flood that would cover Babylon and Egypt that is not a world wide flood.
Details. Give us some details.
In addition: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? Sorry but if it existed then it exists now and can be identified by lat lon. So far you have presented NO evidence that there was a flood, a local flood, regional flood, world wide flood, recent flood, ancient flood, no evidence at all. All you have provided is word salad and irrelevant crap.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Every one of such claims have been found as bogus. So debunk it.
Did you not wonder why no transit imprints between 8600 and 6000 are seen? If what you say is true, why do we not have alphabetical Chinese books listing 1000's of years of ancient history? I didn't say it was written in modern Chinese (lots of dialects, btw) I said it was found in China. Whatever the case, it completely debunks your claim. Either illustrate why it's false or concede.
You bring up a one only 'CONJURED" myth, yet dispute tangible evidenced writings with factually evidenced historical landmarks!? Factually evidenced historical landmarks mean what exactly? How is that relevant to the point where indisputable evidence exists of documents with names that predate Adam?
Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days! Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.
The listing of the actions mentioned before life emerged do account for billions of years; it cannot be after the fact because the premise of billions was as yet not in the human vocab or mindset; this is in fact the first alluding to such a time scale of a finite universe's age, well before the term science was coined. It alludes to nothing of the such. It flat out gives literal days. You are making the assumption based on what you have luxury of knowing -- that the universe is in fact billions of years old. But the bible is at odds with that fact. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The point is Mount Ararat shows the general vicinity of the flood - backed by listing of other nations and regions of its surrounds; it cannot be retrospective if it is the first such listing of that mount. But who cares? Why does it matter? If the Enuma Elish talks about Ur and Babylon (places known to exist) does that mean it's version of the Flood story is therefore necessarily accurate because of it? No, it doesn't. So please explain to me again the relevance, cuz I'm not seeing it. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Does everyone agree, at the very least, the Noah story stands up to historical scrutiny based on a regional flood? No, absolutely not. It's a fact that a big flood occured in that region, sure. That doesn't mean, however, there was a guy named Noah who built a wooden aircraft carrier full of every known species of animal on the planet, nor does it mean that only 7 people survived and then re-populated the earth. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: If a report includes many factual stats it does not mean it is true of being contemporary; it can still be retrospective reporting. But if those stats are mentioned for the first time - the situation alters dramatically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What makes it a fact? Who says Noah's household [domestic animals] and a person by the name Noah, makes it non-factual?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It has no impact on the Noah story.
quote: We have no older names than Adam; factual landmarks affirm historical credibility; your chinese writings does not show the same. Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days! Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.
quote: Do you understand that first is not one, but many others preceding it? Analogy: is the sprinter who comes first the first or one of many sprinters? Genesis is astutely correct - and its no typo! Of note, Genesis goes on to correctly state the following days as SECOND; THIRD; etc. Why so?
quote: I am making no assumptions; I am listing the text! The text does not have the luxury of knowing what we know today!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This is a seasonal factor; the dates change as more relics pop up. But nevertheless, there is no evidence that is known that dates the story to before any religions, as you claimed.
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. I don't think the default position for the claims of a religious document should be 'generally credible' when they are talking about such incredible things.
You inferred special treatment as the agenda here? No I didn't. I implied that the agenda was to propose the origins of the Israelites were from a family that was close to Yahweh, that the story glorifies Yahweh as a powerful figure and other such things.
'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. This thread is not a discussion about whether the flood was global or regional. I couldn't care less about that issue right at this moment. If we accept that it was a regional flood, we are still left with the issue of evidence for this flood. The evidence I've seen you present, that I specifically take issue with, is that there is no agenda to the flood story which is somehow an indicator of its truth and the claim that the story predates religion, which is an unevidenced claim.
Moral superiority? A host of bad deeds are also listed quote: nor do the moral laws apply to Jews: the term Jews do not appear in the laws. That's why I was talking about the Israelites, not the Jews.
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'? No I'm not confusing my bibles.
Choose your facorite chosen and agenda before making such a claim as your reason of proof. I was just pointing out that there are many possible agendas that can be inferred from the existence of the text. It is not free of agenda.
The report is fantastically and astonishingly accurate aside from a global flood view; no ancient writings quite measure up here. How do you know it is fantastically and astonishingly accurate? This is not a claim that can be made for historical documents, except in the cases where there happens to be physical evidence to back them up. So far you've mentioned no physical evidence, just the documents. How do you know these documents are reliable? It seems clear to me the authors had an agenda, and there is no reason to think that agenda is to tell the complete truth. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It does matter. You reading a European, Christian edition, which is hardly a credible source.
quote: Wrong again. The actions of depicting the universe's age is not in days because DAY and WEEK were introduced in Genesis; billions was not yet in the human vocab. This is the mark of authentic writings true to its time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Agreed. That is why this writings is mysterious. Its an anomaly on manifold levels, including that its the first alphabetical book [a multi-page continueing narrative], way ahead of its time even as of today. Genesis is astounding more so than if its scientifically correct [which it is!] - because it even thinks in the mode that it does: where have we seen a description of the universe as finite, containing unaccountable and inumerable stars, the introduction of the DAY, the seperation of water from land, followed by the first listing of life form categories in their correct order and subsequent to a seed which acts as a directive program chip as the factor for reproduction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Hyroglyphx,
Hyroglyphx writes: Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true. It seems odd for me to support IAJ but in this he is correct the text says 'day one' using the Cardinal number which means there was no day before that day. All the rest use the Ordinal numbers. The Hebrew text: יום אחד Hebrew reads from right to left thus the first word יום is day. The second word which is the last word in the sentence אחד is the Cardinal number 'one' Had the author intended for the Ordinal number to be used (first) he would have used the Hebrew word ראשון which means first. Now as to the definition of day which you question. God gives the definition of a day in Genesis 1:5. God called the light period day and He called the darkness night. He then combined the light period that had ended with the eveining in Genesis 1:2 and the dark period that ended with the light period of the morning as day one. He then declared the end of each light period with evening and the end of the dark period at morning as the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day and the seventh day. Day 2-7 ended with an evening the close of a light period and a morning the close of a dark period. Since that takes place with every rotation of the Earth it makes those days a 24 hour day or thereabouts. That first light period is something else though there is no limit to how long it lasted. Therefore the Earth is just as old as it is as it was created in the beginning. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
And since you stopped by, what's your take on the date and magnitude of the flood?
IAJ feels it was recent, maybe in the order of 4,500 years ago, and local or at most regional. Is he right or wrong, and why? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:BTW, I hope everyone here realizes that the biblical account of the Flood never mentions Mount Ararat. It mentions the mountains (plural) of Ararat. I.e. it is speaking of a region, not of a particular mountain. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The term 'or' is not credible here;...
Why not?
... more precise infrmation is already contained in the texts - namely surrounding nations.
How is that more precise than a geographic location down to the minutes/seconds?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024