Summations Only

quote:

---

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 This is not a claim that can be made for historical documents, except in the cases where there happens to be physical evidence to back them up.

---

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?

quote:

---

The term 'or' is not credible here;...

​

Why not?

---

Because it is not a reasonable demand, as is this one:

quote:

---

... 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?

---

Minutes and seconds were not yet in the human mindset. The writings are historically authentic, as also seen in the descriptions of the ancient Egytpian diets and lifestyle: you won't find tomatoes or camels in the text.

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.

---

Do you realise that makes the description even more accurate, because it seems to know there was not one lone mountain but a series?

Of note is the day beginning with night/darkness, aligns with the second verse, where darknessness is listed before the light appearing. This says one of either two things:1. The darkness predates light and light was an action thereafter. Technically, this makes it correct a day begins with the eve [darkness], not the morning light.Or2. Both the darkness and the light appeared simultainiously, namely both were seperated from the underlying voidless much, and both were equally seperated from each other ['And (why and?) He seperated the light from the darkness'].Off topic, but one can ask if the light in scenario [2] aligns with the big bang. Also, I don't see darkness as the absence of light: the attributes of these have no commonality and differ in kind than degree. I agree more with scenario 2.

You are exaggerating. I absolutely provided precise and irrefutable historical and geographical proof of the arc's landing location, in a manner which is not open to confusion. To the extent I was asked to provide longtitude and latitudes of an ancient event - in case you were absent from this forum at the time. My summary conclusion is all charges are negated except one called denial.

kNOCK-KNOCK!This is what you should better attend to:

quote:

---

If you can't point to it on a map - then you don't know where it is.

---

Does Mr. Admin/Monitor Esq even understand I have three times provided 'MAP' pointers of Noah's location from the text itself, with no personal input or improvisation? Do you? Did you even read the part in my posts quoting verse references that Noah's arc landed in the Ararat mountains, and that the surrounding countires are Ninveh, Egypt, Canaan and Babylon. Would you like me to draw those countries in a map with longtitude and latitude to satisfy jokers and clowns - would it help?Then there's this beauty:

quote:

---

What factual stats?

---

Are the above map names NOT factual historical and geographical stats? Please enlighten since you decided to assist with your brilliant input.There's more:

quote:

---

year old hearsay from a single source.

---

Not true. There is cross-nation independent reporting of this flood, which I already posted, with none responding to it.

quote:

---

We have no older names than Adam

​

Nonsense, and I've proven otherwise. The Enuma Elish predates

---

I already responded to this: this is listed by scholars as a bogus document, which date is post Hebrew, and asked the poster why he never saw this or even ask why we have no draduated imprints if this writing was 8,500 years old. Do the monitor have any response maybe?Shall I go on - or will you now enlighten us why you asked my not to post in that science thread because I claimed the universe is finite? Let me know if you care to have a bout with me in science knowledge too.

Here's what you should be responding to:

quote:

---

Minutes and seconds were not yet in the human mindset.

​

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, they are now.
How about joining us in the present?

---

I should apologise that a 3000 year text does not contain minutes and seconds.

quote:

---

Do you realise that makes the description even more accurate, because it seems to know there was not one lone mountain but a series?

​

Well, maybe more accurate, but certainly less precise.

---

Pls show us, compared to which other writings is it maybe more accurate but less precise? How should it be shown to be more precise - you forgot to say?

The Christian take on the Hebrew bible is very genuine and sincere. But that does not mean it is also correct. The Hebrew text is very clear the earth is not 6000 years old, Isaac when offered for sacrifce was not a child but over 30 years old, and the flood is a regional one. Consider it when you wax poetic.

quote:

---

First you say there's no evidence and none should be expected.

---

Who says contemporary land marks introduced for the first time, with cross nation reporting are not evidence? Why not check how archeologists decide?