Noah's Ark

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Mickmeister, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    You'd be wise to read the text yourself instead of making it up as you go along. There is nothing in it to suggest a wind increasing in speed. If you're going to believe the Bible, why don't you just believe it instead of trying to fix it?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    There could be no history without science. It takes a lot of technology to assemble facts and evidence from ancient cultures and to distinguish, from among the many clues, the reality of their existence, as compared to the legends. Were it not for accomplishments like this, I think we would be as clueless as the ancient people were, about what is real and what is not.

    You can't expect to keep dismissing science as the evil purveyor of failed teachings. If that were true, you wouldn't be using technology to have this dialogue. The underlying principles that make this technology work are no different than the ones used to conserve and decipher the text from Hammurabi. The reality is that it this is where the law is actually written in stone, not in the imaginary tablets of Moses. The story is a myth, nothing more. Hammurabi is real. His gods are mythical, but his insight into laying down the law (even the horrific punishments) serves to illustrate how this problem of organizing societies under law and order is much older than the Hebrew nation itself.

    The Bible is not an authority. It's a hodge-podge collection of writings for which no autographs and no biogaphical evidence of authorship exist. It's one of the least authenticated writings in the world to hold up as coming from authority. It's merely a collection of myths, legends, and fables into which an ancient and obsure people wove their supersitions, their laws, their history, their poety and their advice. If you think about it, there is no artifact called a Bible. There are codices and fragments,, and particular versions and styles, but no single original Bible. Yet we have the original code of Hammurab, and the myths that predate the Bible, such as the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh Epics, because they were left in stone and ceramics. From this point of view, those writings have more objective authority in terms of their authenticity.

    If it's a mindset that pursues truth by exploring the best available evidence of what is true, even to the extent of studying the authenticity, origins, date and meaning of Bible aritifacts.

    It's been a while -- the Middle Ages, most noticeably -- since religious people burned scientists at the stake. You mean you wish you were living in the Middle Ages?

    Preserving what you called the Bible wasn't that costly, especially after the invention of the Gutenburg printing methods. All I'm saying is that it's your loss if you ignore the best evidence around you. The nutty ideas you put forward concerning natural history according to YECism are a direct result of ignoring and discounting the endless evidence that explains how and when the Earth was actually formed. And that stems from believing you have to read your version literally, at all costs.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    True science ought to agree with true religion. But at the moment the world has false relgion and false science, the antagonistic cousins.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    The KJV is virtually word for word as the dead sea scrolls.

    People were prepared to die for it rather than betray what it stood for, intelligent outstanding characters, unlike the modern scholar who thinks he is above the Bible, and then proceeds to play it down to the level the atheists want it, for a goodly sum of money.
    The authorised version is not copyrighted as are the tweeked versions put together by boards of scholars.
  8. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    I am only giving you info on what others may discover if they come across what I have. The Bible makes it clear that the atmosphere, winds etc are one of the things used to dominate ocean behaviour. But I won't elaborate. The Bible has more science in it than any library.
  9. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    The Bible makes the claim that it is the inspired word of God and that it has been given and preserved for mankind as a basis by which to relate to God. The only way to find that out is to test it by its claims. You are allowed to test God and prove Him by the promises and principles in it, and the only way to know that is to become aquainted with what it says.

    Not one in ten thousand people have read it cover to cover, and that includes ministers of religion, which might explain why there are so many conflicting opinions about what constitutes a fair religion.

    As far as science is concerned, I agree with most of its methods, but not its conclusions of its observations, any more than I would expect that the technology I'm using is a result of some self perpetuating/ organising evolution from a factory.
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    The Bible makes not reference to "the Bible". The closest might be "writings" (scripture). There was no Christian Bible until the 4th century after Christ. And it was substantially different fro what you call "the Bible". For this reason, it takes a lot of work to explain your claim.

    Most of the Bible's claims can easily be reduced by separating fact from fiction. Then you simply check the facts against other world histories and other evidence of those eras.

    But God is cultural construction, nothing more. You would not be thinking this had no early superstition ever existed.

    I disagree as to the conclusion. But the people who read it cover to cover are the curators of the codices and the scholars who help us understand it as a historical artifact. Their explanations are quite scientific even though many of them are also religious people. And all of them would take you to task for reading it literally.

    You show little if any agreement with scientific methods. You can't separate the observations and conclusions from the methodology. It's an integrated process. By the was, you get self-perpetuating organisms from factories every day. Yogurt might be an example. Labs certainly sell plenty of self replicating biological materials. And I assume you are aware that a human-engineered bacteria has been produced which is self -replicating. In any case you need only understand DNA a little better to understand replication. Same with natural selection and evolution. And same with the exegesis and the Bible.
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Uh, BZZZZZZZZZ wrong answer, you lose.

    It is strange - it seems you know nothing and will believe anything said by the radical religous right.

    Do you think that men have one less rib than women? My grandmother told me that, and she was a nurse so she ought to know. I informed a biology teacher of this fact when I was a youngster - I believe that was the hardest I ever saw that man laugh...
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    My own personal Number One Dummy Prize went to the lady who came running into my office on a Monday morning. She had learned in church the previous day that in the distant past there was no violence on earth. I asked how, then, did the predatory animals like lions and tigers obtain food? She said that in those days they didn't eat meat. All animals were herbivorous. I explained that herbivores have huge guts to house the bacterial culture necessary to turn cellulose into protein fast enough to maintain their body weight. I asked if she had seen any pictures of what the ancestral lions and tigers must have looked like. With those distorted multi-chambered stomachs and intestines dominating their physiology, they would have been grotesque and weighed as much as cattle.

    Before I even got around to asking her what force prevented the earth from being completely overrun by insects, without bats, birds, frogs, bears, etc. to keep their populations down by violently killing and eating them, she had already stomped out of my office in disgust.
  13. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Plus, a herbivore is pretty violent from a plant's point of view.
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    In general, herbivores do not kill plants, but merely lop off leaves and shoots, leaving the plant to grow back and provide more food later. This is a qualitative difference from predation.
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    The Bible is just about aware that wind causes waves. That isn't very profound, nor is it anywhere near what you claimed. In the story of the flood, there is NO INDICATION of extraordinary winds.

    Nonsense. The Bible is factually wrong more often than it's right. The accurate science in it could probably be written on one page.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2012
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Not only were all animals herbivores ina goda davita*, but the dinosaurs were also on the ark. The bible clearly states that all of the animals created were on the ark. The real question in my mind is, were the large sauropods 'clean' or 'unclean' animals. This is important because as we all know the ark had 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pair of unclean animals. If the sauropods were 'clean' animals then the ark must have been about the size of Madagascar.

    *This is the title of an Iron Butterfly song which resulted from a drunkenly slurred line "in the garden of eden".

    I am the font of all useless information.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Double spaced with oversized margins and a large font to boot!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I think you need cloven hooves to be clean.

    (Many years ago - but not as far back as Iron Butterfly - my brother and I used to tease our more religious cousins that there must have been dinosaurs on the ark. I almost fell off my chair when I found out that that's actually the official creationist line now. We also used to say that there were trees on the ark but they haven't caught up with us on that one yet.)
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    How to argue like a Creationist. Primer.

    1. Don't worry if you know little about science. In fact if you know almost nothing, you are at an advantage.
    All you need is your Bible.

    2. The scientist will generally agree with you that science wants to know the truth about the World we live in.
    Bang. You've got the critter. The Bible is the Truth, so Good science must agree with the Bible.
    (I thought you'd like that little snare. It's my favourite of all time)
    Fools! Why spend Billions on experiments. Just look in your Bible. It's all true in every detail, so look it up there.

    3. No matter how clever they are, they will have gaps in their knowledge.
    Find out what they are and steer the argument in that direction.

    4. If you feel you are losing an argument, change the subject, or interject with some conundrum.
    Use one of my 50 Evolution problems to Bamboozle a scientist
    (available as an ebook at $3.90)
    Example: "How does a Peacock's tail evolve, smartass?"
    (Don't actually say smartass)

    4. If the scientist does catch you out, here's how to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
    Say: "Yes, it does appear that way, but that can't be true because the Bible says it isn't"
    Watch that self satisfied atheistic grin disappear from their faces.

    5. Never underestimate the power of fire and brimstone.
    It's worked for centuries, and it will work today.
    If you are on some atheist forum with namby pamby rules about not threatening people,
    sort of hint at it.

    6. Remember that the Bible is not only totally factual as regards science.
    The same goes for History, Geography, Philosophy and everyone of those other hi-faluting clever-talk subjects.
    Now you can win every argument, about anything,
    without needing to know doodly squat.
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Like that torturing woman-burning son of a bitch King James? You had to hope you didn't live downwind of him or your house would be coated with a layer of human fat.
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The Bible James sponsored is a masterpiece.
    Apart from that, he was a bloodthirsty paranoid, piece of shit.

    Talking about the death sentence,
    here's what you should be put to death for:

    Sexual activities
    Adultery (Leviticus 20:10-12, man and woman)
    Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
    The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (death by fire) (Leviticus 21:9)
    Rape of a virgin who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion, and no punishment is specified for raping a single non-virgin female. (Deuteronomy 22:25)
    Being the victim of rape, if one is an engaged female virgin and the rape occurs in a city. If it takes place in a field, the victim is spared because nobody would have heard her screams. (Deuteronomy 22:23-27) Presumably, virgins who scream for help inside a city will always be rescued.
    Men practicing bestiality. (Both man and animal die). (Leviticus 20:15) [4]
    Women practicing bestiality (Both woman and animal die). (Leviticus 20:16) [4]
    Having sex with your father’s wife, as distinct from "your mother", as it was common practice for men at the time to have several wives. (both die) (Leviticus 20:20)
    Having sex with your daughter-in-law. (Leviticus 20:30)
    Incest. (Leviticus 20:17) [5]
    (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The girls seem to get a free... errrr ...ride on this one. (Leviticus 18:23)
    Marrying a woman and her daughter. They are all burnt to death (Leviticus 20:14)
    A couple of these demand that the "sinners" be burned to death rather than stoned — which was the more usual form of capital punishment. One can wonder why these crimes in particular merit this especially horrible fate.
    [edit] Religious laws

    Worshiping idols (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
    Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
    Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36).
    Practicing magic (Exodus 22:18).
    Being a medium or spiritualist. (Stoning) (Leviticus 20:27).
    Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
    Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)[6]
    Giving one of your descents to Molech. Probably refers to human sacrifice, which is not now as commonly practised. (Leviticus 20:2)
    Non-priests going near the tabernacle when it is being moved. (Numbers 1:51)
    Being a false prophet. (Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 18:20, Zechariah 13:2-3)
    [edit] Parents and Children.

    Striking your parents (Exodus 21:15).
    Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9).
    Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) (Quite a few of us might have a problem with this one)(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
    [edit] Violent and legal crimes

    Murder. However if a slave is beaten to death the owner is “punished” — not necessarily killed. If the slave survives the beating then there is no punishment. This is part of a wide range of slavery laws in the Old and New Testament. (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Numbers 35:16-21)
    Kidnapping and selling a man. This is really a law against making an Israelite a slave against his will, as other laws happily allow the "stealing of men" to make slaves. (Exodus 21:16).
    Perjury (in certain cases) (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).
    Deuteronomy 19:20 explicitly identifies that the purpose of this is deterrence. "The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing (malicious and false testimony by one man against another) be done among you." Presumably all the other death penalties are assumed to be for deterrence as well.
    Ignoring the verdict of a judge – (or a priest!) (Deuteronomy 17:8-13).
    Not penning up a known dangerous bull, if the bull subsequently kills a man or a woman. Both the animal and the reckless owner of the dangerous bull are to be put to death. (Exodus 21:29)
    [edit]Things that don’t go anywhere else.

    Living in a city that failed to surrender to the Israelites. (Kill all the men, make the women and children slaves.) (Deuteronomy 20:12-14)
    [edit] Possible grounds for execution.

    The following carry the punishment of being "cut off from his people". Some people seem to feel that this is the same as the death penalty, although the ancient Israelites may simply have interpreted it as exile.
    A male who is not circumcised. (Genesis 17:14)
    Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (Exodus 12:15)
    Manufacturing anointing oil. (Exodus 30:33
    Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple. (Leviticus 17:1-9)
    Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: (Leviticus 20:18)
    Consuming blood: This would presumably include eating rare meat and black pudding. Also see above. (Leviticus 17:10).
    Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: (Leviticus 7:20)
    Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: (Leviticus 19:5-8)
    Going to the temple in an unclean state: (Numbers 19:13)
  22. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    It makes sense that you would agree with sceptical/nonliteralist scholars, it is consistent with your drive.

    What you are saying about scientific observation and conclusion is also correct, because observation is from mind set and not eyes only.

    I was giving science the benefit of the doubt about what they observe, but going by your correction, even what they observe is only what they believe.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  23. Gerhard Kemmerer Banned Banned

    So are you mocking your grandmother or the Bible?
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012

Share This Page