Noah's Flood...

[Guest]

daybrown, I read your posts, and I think I understood. I think it's an interesting question - BUT, your style of posting is so long and involved it's rather difficult to follow. I certainly am not in agreement with the poster archeaologist in most of his/her posts in this forum, but that was a rather dense post. No offense intended. I would genuinely like to know more about this.

[Doe]

Sorry, that was me.

[Guest]

"Modern investigative scholarship has shown the Genesis accounts (there are two of them) of the “Great Flood” and its hero, Noah, to be pure fiction"

to use this line as a jumping off spot, i would doubt that scholarship as there is no way of knowing at this time, who wrote down the first account. since we have not dug up all cultures and their records it is highly speculative and misleading to say something like this quote does.

as far as we know, the gilgamesh epic may only be a recording of the genesis account, written long after the oral record went through some changes. while the Genesis writer (i am not convinced that it was Moses as i came across an interesting point that brought a new perspective to the authorship of the first book of the Bible. before i can use it here i have to find it again.), may have stuck to the facts, not giving into the temptation to use literary license and was influenced by God to keep the record correct.

"To accept this story as fact flies in the face of practically all of the archaeological, historical, literary, meteorological, and geological research ever conducted"

i would challenge probably many of those conclusions stemming from that research. mainly because it leaves out too many variables that would influence the world at the time. also the bias used in conducting that research would taint the results and that means that those findings can not be totally trusted.

so post all the quotes you want, but unless they are truly objective they don't mean a thing.

[Guest]

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/flood.html

Modern investigative scholarship has shown the Genesis accounts (there are two of them) of the “Great Flood” and its hero, Noah, to be pure fiction. Much of it was plagiarized from older cultures such as Sumaria and Babylonia. To accept this story as fact flies in the face of practically all of the archaeological, historical, literary, meteorological, and geological research ever conducted. Yet, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary many Christians, both clergy and lay people, do just that. They insist on the historical accuracy of this story. So let us briefly review some of the more obvious reasons to regard the Biblical story of the Great Flood simply as another myth.

And what are the bold Mr Cable's qualifications to make statements like that? He has a cheek talking about 'plagiarism', when the first footnote in his own article quite clearly says that it is based in part on an article by G. Larue! The only other references he quotes come from a work which just happens to reflect his own viewpoint, and a newspaper article.
The very fact he chooses to give dates as 'BCE' and 'CE' proves he has an ulterior motive -to denigrate Christianity- better than anything else he subsequently wrote. Hypocrisy, anyone?
Museums in the City of Glasgow decided last year to follow the same PC BS, dressed up as 'scholarly convention'. Result? Every single one of them now faces staff cuts less than a year later, because Joe Public voted with his feet and refused to be patronised!
Right; we've had now had two pieces of 'evidence' to 'disprove' ID, neither of which could be said to be either scholarly or objective. Next!

[Guest]

good point. after reading your post, i went back and read the whole article and it is amazing how the same arguments crop up in the different discussions i have had. the main problem with this guy's article is that he is trying to use human understanding to understand the spiritual and it just doesn't work.

then it is fascinating how God, who is capable of originating the flood is suddenly incapable of thinking about all the little problems that come with having so many animals on the ark at the same time.

then at in his final paragraph he demands that christians be honest, when he does not give the topic proper investigation and thought. he stays at the surface of the verses without exploration nor with an open mind and expects to find all the answers spelled out for him and when they are not, he cries foul.

anyways, the limited thinking that goes on in this type of critiques is amazing. do you not think that if the bathroom details were important they would be included in the story? of couurse. if you focus onthe stuff not mentioned then you are missing the point of why the acount is in the Bible in the first place.

ask me and i will point it out later...

[Tech]

Ok Arch and realist lets clear up creationist and Id once and for all .

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

In whichever way life developed, we have fossil traces of it that have been reliably dated at 3.5 billion years old. And there are suggestions from carbon deposit analyses (looking at percentages of the kinds of isotopes that we know are produced by life) that hint at an even earlier animation. The fossil remains, of bacteria, look similar to a modern variety, the Cyanobacteria, which are actually thought of as the most advanced.
We are looking at some two to three hundred million years for the appearance of a form of life on Earth.

Therefore creationists 6000 year timeline is just a figment of narrow minded fanatic mysticism , and just downright stupid.

As for Id , since life developed so long ago (scientificly proveable)
The premise that some entity planned for two to three hundred million
years before their design resulted in mankind requires a truly inept entity or again a return to Unprovable mysticism which has no place in any scientific world .

[Guest]

RESA is an educational resource, not scientific. www.resa.net That's the equivalent of me quoting from my local education authority to 'prove' an argument.
Remember what I said about the 'need' to disprove ID turning into a crusade for some people?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Ok Arch and realist lets clear up creationist and Id once and for all.

Optimist.

[Minimalist]

Ok Arch and realist lets clear up creationist and Id once and for all.

Optimist.

[Guest]

Again, plenty of snide comments, but no actual evidence

[daybrown]

Look up "The Book of J." The Torah, based on the stylistic evidence of the original Hebrew (which is much more obvious than the rather more consistent translation of King James) was written by different authors.

A historical analysis reveals that one canon was in the hands of the tribe of Juda and the other of Israel. But just as there was a council of Nicea mandated by a monarch, so also with the Hebrew documents, which were merged together.

which is why so often there are two very similar stories in the Torah at different places with the names of people and places changed. So also there were different versions of Gilgamesh at different times and places. The Mitanni version is the oldest yet found. Who knows what else there may be.

Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, at the apex of the Vedic tradition before the Brits took over in the 18th century, was also exposed to the Levantine scriptures. But drawing on over 2000 years of Vedic texts, he sums up what they have to say. Which, among other things, is that we live on a "projected matrix" out of the mind of the Goddess, where every detail, right down to the ink in a bible is rendered for your examination.

He does not say or know that fossils prove life existed for millions of years, but it is clear from his analysis that the reality we see is crafted *as if* it has. The question is not pertinent to his cosmology. He says there are a myriad worlds, and for all we know, there may be some created just as the Fundamentalists believe 6009 years ago, every atom of every fossil perfectly in place.

Well, perfectly enough anyway to be convincing. And now that we know about the computer generation of fractles, the software to project such a convincing illusion is understandable. Which has something to do with why I posted 'fractle.gif' at http://anzi.biz/artifax.htm - of the 'meditation hall' at Knossus. How did they make fractles without computers 3500 years ago?

The Bagavad Gita, over 2000 years ago, does not set out to save the souls of men. It does not say that all men *have* souls in the first place. Rather, it tells Arjuna that some of what he sees are forms which were created and animated by the divine, which exist solely as a challenge to the fulfillment of his Kharma. The Gita calls these forms "Avatars". The idea is also evident in Tocharian, one of the original languages that broke off from Proto-Indo-European, in which- while there are words for 'men' and 'women', there is a special suffix to denote a *sentient being*.

All the rest are livestock that we have a duty to manage humanely. History since shows us that leaving them in the hands of Avatars leads to violence. At least, the history of the world I see. YMMV.

[Minimalist]

Guys, it is obvious that there is no evidence that either of you will ever accept. Feel free to adhere to your fables if it makes you feel comfortable.

Meanwhile, you might consider this quotation:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Roberts

[Guest]

How do you know, when you seem to be going out of your way to avoid giving us any?
Who is Stephen Roberts btw?

[Minimalist]

I've suggested books by reputable scholars, you decline to read them. You only want simple answers to complex problems, like you get out of your bible (and I call it yours because you apparently subscribe to its nonsense.)

Keep on believing that God created man out of dirt....instead of the obvious fact that man created god out of his own fears.

[Minimalist]

As for Roberts....look it up. I'm not your research service.