home
RSS
January 28th, 2014
10:37 AM ET

Noah's Ark discovery raises flood of questions

Opinion by Joel Baden, Special to CNN

(CNN) - That faint humming sound you’ve heard recently is the scholarly world of the Bible and archaeology abuzz over the discovery of the oldest known Mesopotamian version of the famous Flood story.

A British scholar has found that a 4,000-year-old cuneiform tablet from what is now Iraq contains a story similar to the biblical account of Noah’s Ark.

The newly decoded cuneiform tells of a divinely sent flood and a sole survivor on an ark, who takes all the animals on board to preserve them. It even includes the famous phrase “two by two,” describing how the animals came onto the ark.

But there is one apparently major difference: The ark in this version is round.

We have known for well over a century that there are flood stories from the ancient Near East that long predate the biblical account (even the most conservative biblical scholars wouldn’t date any earlier than the ninth century B.C).

What’s really intriguing scholars is the description of the ark itself.

The Bible presents a standard boat shape - long and narrow. The length being six times the measure of the width, with three decks and an entrance on the side.

The newly discovered Mesopotamian text describes a large round vessel, made of woven rope, and coated (like the biblical ark) in pitch to keep it waterproof.

Archaeologists are planning to design a prototype of the ark, built to the specifications of this text, to see if it would actually float. Good luck to them in trying to estimate the weight of its cargo.

So, why does this new discovery matter? It matters because it serves as a reminder that the story of the Flood wasn’t set in stone from its earliest version all the way through to its latest incarnation.

The people who wrote down the Flood narrative, in any of its manifestations, weren’t reporting on a historical event for which they had to get their facts straight (like what shape the ark was).

Everyone reshapes the Flood story, and the ark itself, according to the norms of their own time and place.

In ancient Mesopotamia, a round vessel would have been perfectly reasonable - in fact, we know that this type of boat was in use, though perhaps not to such a gigantic scale, on the Mesopotamian rivers.

The ancient Israelites, on the other hand, would naturally have pictured a boat like those they were familiar with: which is to say, the boats that navigated not the rivers of Mesopotamia but the Mediterranean Sea.

This detail of engineering can and should stand for a larger array of themes and features in the flood stories. The Mesopotamian versions feature many gods; the biblical account, of course, only one.

The Mesopotamian versions tell us that the Flood came because humans were too noisy for the gods; the biblical account says it was because violence had spread over the Earth.

Neither version is right or wrong; they are, rather, both appropriate to the culture that produced them. Neither is history; both are theology.

What, then, of the most striking parallel between this newly discovered text and Genesis: the phrase “two by two”? Here, it would seem, we have an identical conception of the animals entering the ark. But not so fast.

Although most people, steeped in Sunday school tradition, will tell you without even thinking about it that “the animals, they came on, they came on by twosies twosies,” that’s not exactly what the Bible says.

More accurately, it’s one thing that the Bible says - but a few verses later, Noah is instructed to bring not one pair of each species, but seven pairs of all the “clean” animals and the birds, and one pair of the “unclean” animals.

(This is important because at the end of the story, Noah offers sacrifices - which, if he only brought one pair of each animal, would mean that, after saving them all from the Flood, he then proceeded to relegate some of those species to extinction immediately thereafter.)

This isn’t news - already in the 17th century scholars recognized that there must be two versions of the Flood intertwined in the canonical Bible.

There are plenty of significant differences between the two Flood stories in the Bible, which are easily spotted if you try to read the narrative as it stands.

One version says the Flood lasted 40 days; the other says 150. One says the waters came from rain. Another says it came from the opening of primordial floodgates both above and below the Earth. One version says Noah sent out a dove, three times. The other says he sent out a raven, once.

And yes: In one of those stories, the animals come on “two by two.”

Does this mean that the author of that version was following the ancient Mesopotamian account that was just discovered? Certainly not.

If the goal of the ark is the preservation of the animals, then having a male and female of each is just common sense. And, of course, it’s a quite reasonable space-saving measure.

Likewise, the relative age of the Mesopotamian and biblical accounts tells us nothing about their relative authority.

Even if we acknowledge, as we probably should, that the biblical authors learned the Flood story from their neighbors - after all, flooding isn’t, and never was, really a pressing concern in Israel - this doesn’t make the Bible any less authoritative.

The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history.

There is no doubt that the discovery of this new ancient Mesopotamian text is important. But from a biblical perspective, its importance resides mostly in the way it serves to remind us that the Flood story is a malleable one.

There are multiple different Mesopotamian versions, and there are multiple different biblical versions. They share a basic outline, and some central themes. But they each relate the story in their own way.

The power of the Flood story, for us the canonical biblical version, is in what it tells us about humanity’s relationship with God. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden. 

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Judaism • Opinion

soundoff (5,820 Responses)
  1. Cpt. Obvious

    I think I'd be a bit less arrogant if I believed in a big invisible and undetectable sky wizard that chanted the world into existence in six days, and if I believed in magic that makes any and all evidence irrelevant (except when some archeologist discovers something I agree with). Then again, maybe it's arrogance that makes the Christian instead of the other way around? Hmm

    January 28, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I think it's like an earworm. Like a terrible song they can't get out of their heads.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
  2. CommonSensed

    "The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history."

    Well sure. Because who needs facts to back up your worldview? They tend to just get in the way and muck things up.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
  3. evil0live

    You have to watch this video for 3 minutes before the guy says that it is all mythology. CNN headline FAIL.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • The Pimento of Justice

      Why does that surprise you?

      January 28, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • doobzz

      The other headline fail is that this tablet isn't even about Noah's ark.

      January 28, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
  4. Austin

    Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
    Matthew 6:10

    Romans 5:8 ►

    But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

    Romans 8:16 ►

    The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

      – Gandalf

      January 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
    • Science Works

      This might help Austin but I bout it – key word ANIMAL (primates)

      Social evolution: The ritual animal

      http://www.nature.com/news/social-evolution-the-ritual-animal-1.12256

      January 28, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
      • Science Works

        *doubt*

        January 28, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • Austin

          why would I deceive you about the spirit science? why would I be honest?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • Reality # 2

          Spirit Science? Those are two words that should never be used together.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • Science Works

          Wow Austin a little deceptive there !

          January 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Pamela

          What Reality #2 said. Exactly. Right on.

          Don't sully science by putting it beside your woowoo words of your cult beliefs.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          Pneumatology – Study of the Holy Spirit ("Spirit Science")

          Science is a language – not an invention of man. There's nothing new under the sun.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • doobzz

          "Pneumatology" is a science? LOL!

          January 28, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          JB
          You didn't respond to several queries in the thread below did the devil crap on your keyboard or are you as shallow as your beliefs, the latter I presume?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      The Our Father has been analyzed for historic authenticity by many NT scholars. The result: Other than line 10b, the prayer is historically nil. e.g. http://www.faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/jdb120.html

      And has been noted many times:

      JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")

      Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.

      Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

      Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.

      Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

      So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?

      January 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
  5. Jesus' Beloved

    C.Q.
    Since the sarcasm flew right over your head.... I'm not useless, and despised. It's only those professing worldly knowledge who choose to label others as such. My point is – it doesn't matter what you call me, I'm already accepted by Christ, so what you or the world thinks or chooses to call me, I relish in those names- not because they're true but because of where the words are coming from.

    In case you did not read it 100 times. Sin is already a done issue. Sin was already punished in the body of Christ. All my sins and the sins of the world (past, present and future are already forgiven).
    Apparently you're still walking around with sin-consciousness and feeling unworthy. I don't, because I read the Word, and I believe His Word.
    So you have no point there – except you don't understand what Christ's death and resurrection means.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Austin

      Jehovah Shammah
      Our Lord is There

      January 28, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        ... Our ever present help.

        Thank God.... we are worth to Him, Jesus.

        (apparently a difficult co.ncept for some to grasp)

        January 28, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
    • Observer

      "Sin was already punished in the body of Christ. All my sins and the sins of the world (past, present and future are already forgiven)."

      Yep. Take NO REPONSIBILITY for your actions and let someone else pay the price. Great system. Sounds fair.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        weren't you just bemoaning those who perished in the flood?

        Now you want to have it both ways... hmmm...
        A concept to think of... Those who are forgiven much will Love (Him) much!

        January 28, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • Observer

          Jesus' Beloved,

          Here's your chance. Please try to become the FIRST CHRISTIAN EVER to list ANY of the SINS COMMITTED by all the fetuses that God torturously drowned in the flood.

          Good luck.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          You can't possibly be that stupid, JB. When an atheist describes actions that YOU as a believer attribute to YOUR god and shows the stupidity of it or the disgusting nature of it, it's to get YOU to consider what YOU believe. Idiot.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          Much like now, Noah's instruction to the people was to tell them " Thus saith the Lord, return from your evil ways and forsake your works and the Lord will repent of the evil that he declared to do to you, SO THAT IT SHALL NOT COME TO PASS. Behold I give you 120 years; if you will turn to me and forsake your evil, then will I also turn away from the evil which I told you, and IT SHALL NOT EXIST. "

          They chose death by flood for themselves and their children.
          This was their choice and they chose death. They like you also claimed God didn't exist, until it started to rain.

          Repent (change your mind about God) because the Kingdom of heaven is nigh.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          The kingdom of heaven has been nigh for quite a while now, hasn't it? Jesus was speaking to people about when he would return. He said some of them would still be alive.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Christians believe that might makes right. God doesn't murder innocent fetuses, because he's the most powerful, and so he can't ever murder. If a person tortures someone, they think that's evil, but when god does it to people with hellfire, they call it god....and god's torture lasts much longer than any human torture could. Amazing how they don't mind babies being killed when it's their god doing it. Silly Christians.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          Friend, you need to have your mind renewed to the Word of God.
          What is hell-fire?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • Madtown

          renewed to the Word of God
          ----
          I'd love to read this, would be amazingly interesting. Where can I find it?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      How clever of mankind to get someone to take the rap for the bad things they've done. We should model criminal law around this concept. Sorry, did I steal you car? I have a friend who'll do the time for me. My conscience will be clean!

      January 28, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      There's no invisible disease of sin in some invisible body part called a soul. It's all just myth that can't be proved.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      JB
      Hard to tell with you jesus freaks, to distinguish sarcasm from your reality. So many of you feel like failed disp!cable sinners that need the crutch of some mythical salvation to live with yourselves. I take it you came right out of the womb pure and unblemished with no sin, as I believe all newborns are, then never sinned and never had to be born again. Sh!t man, in your belief system you could be the second coming, do you think you are?

      January 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      "All my sins and the sins of the world (past, present and future are already forgiven)."

      It is often claimed that without god, there is no basis in morality. That atheists just want free license to do whatever they want, because they have no one to answer to. When in fact, it is the opposite, it is the believer who can do as he/she pleases without thinking of real world consequences, because of this exact notion – all my sins are forgiven!

      January 28, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
    • Madtown

      you don't understand what Christ's death and resurrection means
      -----
      "I don't understand either, but it's because I've never heard of Christ. What does this mean for me, anything?"

      – yours,
      a human that God created, and who was born into an area of the world where I'll never even hear the word christianity

      January 28, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
    • Bob

      JB, your whole set of Jesus claims is based on absurd and false premises. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his "salvation" bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla, just to begin with? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      January 28, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      JB
      I see a common thread among the Christian apologist posters on this blog. Cowardice. When backed into a corner by reason and logic you just runaway or post some scripture to complete your circular reasoning. I do not want your pious "god is love and I love my neighbour as myself" BS, because when backed into that corner you do not turn the other cheek but lash out in righteous indignation at those that criticise your belief system. Hypocrisy?

      January 28, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
      • sam stone

        cowards all of them but Gopher is the star

        petty vindictive pr ick of a god they all worship

        January 28, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
  6. Colin

    I have a friend who is on an archaeological dig in the Republic of Croatia. He emailed me about how they had found the remains of the earliest ho.mo erectus outside of Africa, dating to over a million years ago. There is an entire research team there from Oxford University’s paleontology department, the most respected in the World.

    Fortunately, I have a creationist friend who informed me that the entire World began only 6,000 years ago with man already totally evolved (and with a talking snake). So, I am going to write to the team and tell them to all fold up their tents and go home and read their Bibles. The answers to the natural history of the human species are all in there.

    Thanks creationists, you have made me really smart!

    January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
  7. CommonSensed

    Will some bible scholar and believer please help us understand why the difference in the stories?

    And also how this answers if Noah also grabbed all the peoples of the world who's evidence of living predates whatever dates you use for your flood?

    January 28, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      Nothing? Alas.

      January 28, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
  8. Observer

    It doesn't matter. It's all illogical nonsense. No ship that SMALL can hold MILLIONS of ANIMALS, a year's supply of food, and enough pooper scoopers to take care of them.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      And maintain proper climates and habitats.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
  9. Ninpo

    Or:

    Does a “Recently Deciphered 4,000-Year-Old Tablet” Discredit the Genesis Account of Noah's Ark?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/27/4000-year-old-tablet-noahs-ark

    January 28, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • Science Works

      And that is tied to the Inst-itute of Creation Research NO ?

      January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • ME II

      @Ninpo,
      Of course, AIG, supports a reall world wide flood. In fact they have to in order to be AIG, regardless of the evidence:

      "The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe."
      "The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect."
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

      January 28, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
  10. cricket

    It's funny that this news has been released just before the movie Noah comes out.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      Good marketing helps sales.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • doobzz

      Does anyone remember the old Noah's Ark miniseries that was on television a while back? That was comedy gold.

      Jon Voight at his finest.

      January 28, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
  11. Science Works

    WOW and WOW deception at work as posts disappear. ?

    January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
  12. Colin

    What is the only thing capable of making 40% of the country utterly stupid enough to think the entire Universe began less than 10,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake:

    (a) a horrid mental disease

    (b) a failed education system

    (c) a successful Al Qaeda plot to undermine the future of the country; or

    (d) Christianity?

    January 28, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • Responding to the Pride

      Thank God you're so smart!

      January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
      • Colin

        One does not have to be smart to realize the "talking snake" theory is utter garbage, just educated past the fifth grade.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          I bet you think it was an actual "fruit" Eve "ate" as well.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Most Christians believe in actual Eve. What kind of stupid god can't get most of his own followers to get it right? Maybe it's because there's no reliable, measurable way to determine which parts are supposed to be believed as literal and which parts are supposed to believed as figurative. OOPS!
          !

          January 28, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • CommonSensed

          OK JB – what did she actually do or eat then?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • Nevid

          Of course it's an "allegory" fruit. You know.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Responding to the Pride

          To clarify then, you're not smart, but educated past the 5th grade–did I read that right?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • devin

          Riddle me this: Many of my friends and co workers are engineers, physicians and those in possession of graduate degrees in the "hard sciences" ( I will admit there is not an evolutionary biologist in the lot). Many of these individuals believe in a literal serpent found in the Genesis narrative. To what do you attribute this, seeing that your 5th grade education fallacy is just that?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • Jesus' Beloved

          What was the doctrine that Eve partook of ?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
    • fred

      Oh, Colin you do know that even Jesus call his disciples on the carpet for lacking understanding. The issue was not they were stupid but that they were caught up in the religion and thinking of the times. This is why they could not understand the spiritual things Jesus came to reveal. That applies those high on the pride of intellect and those high on the pride of religion as with the Pharisees and Sadducees. The percentage of Christians that believe in a 10,000 year new earth is about the same as the percentage of those who believe there is no God.
      You are todays Pharisee and your traditions/beliefs are as far removed from the truth as most religions.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
      • CommonSensed

        Most religions are far from the truth. Which ones are close?

        January 28, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • fred

          In general those who would deny self and take up the cross daily.
          In a simple manner Jesus said those who love God and others such that they are willing to give up their life.
          Motive is the key more than action. What is my motive for loving God or giving my own life (time, money, feelings etc.). The rich man could not part with his stuff and in the same way we are rich in Christ or the things of this world. Not complicated.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • Bob

          fred, your whole religion is based on absurd and false premises. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his "salvation" bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla, just to begin with? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          January 28, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • fred

          Bob
          You and Jesus reflect the essence of who they are by the words which come from their lips. Jesus committed his life so that all may have life while you wish only to rob, to take away the light and the hope that brought forth the generations since Abraham.
          Why would anyone choose your way over Christ who said I am the way the truth and the life.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • Madtown

          Why would anyone choose your way over Christ
          -----
          Speaking of choice, why isn't Christ available to all of humanity? God created all of humanity, right? Seems Christ can't be the truth and the life, if many of God's creations have no concept of his existence.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • Bob

          fred, stop your cowardly dodging and try instead to respond directly to what I have challenged you with.

          Answer the questions for a change, coward. (I doubt that you can).

          Again, how is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his "salvation" bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla, just to begin with? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          January 28, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
        • fred

          Madtown
          The fact is that God did not need to create in the first place. Based on the evidence the Bible is true because we all fall short of what God asks from creation. Everyone should have been cleansed by the flood but, Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. God provided and Noah was saved. The Bible clearly tells us why and lays out Gods plan for creation.

          Your argument implies God should have set up the plan of creation so that everyone becomes united with God in the end. In short you would choose who goes by your methods not Gods. You like your way better than Gods so you reject God. That is what Eve did and that is what the wicked in the days of Noah did and that is what the wicked today do. The truth of the Bible is revealed in what you see all around you including yourself.

          Tell me how does your way trump the way of Christ.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • Bob

          Coward, fred, man up for a change and answer the questions for a change. No more dodging.

          How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his "salvation" bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla, just to begin with? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          January 28, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
        • Madtown

          God did not need to create in the first place.
          ----
          Yet he did, and here we all are. God makes humans every single day who will never hear the name Jesus, never learn the first thing about christianity. If God required us to follow Christ for our salvation, very simple logic dictates that he'd have to make us all aware of it somehow. I know you struggle with simple logic, but try to think outside of the bible for 1 moment. Without everyone being given access to it, all you have is opinions. You have it, so you think it's correct. The humans that don't have it, have other ideas that they think are correct. They think you're wrong. Since there's no objective standard, no one knows who's right, or who's wrong. God is powerful. He could provide an objective standard to everyone, but he has not. The only logic conclusion is that he doesn't care which religion we follow, if any. You'll reject this, but it's only because you don't utilize simple logic in your thought process.

          January 28, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • fred

          Madtown
          God does not wish that any should perish but that ALL are saved. So, Gods goals fit yours.
          You claim or assume God is incompetent in the delivery of the Gospel. That is not what the Bible says and what we observe to be true today.
          Adam and Eve had two kids one (Able) loved God while the other (Cain) murdered his brother even after a strong warning from God to pay attention and get right with God. Through Cain we end up with a godless and wicked generation where God finally cleanses the creation of all but Noah. Again we are down to one yet all began with the same God. We get down to the time of Jesus and we see again Jesus warning it will be like the days of Noah and a major cleansing will purify the creation. One look around and get out a check list to see we are completing that last cycle.
          The pattern is that the majority (including Christians) choose their own way over the way clearly shown in the Bible. The method of delivery is not the cause for rejecting God as the method has not changed. The cause for rejecting God has not changed since Adam and Eve. It is your logic that rejects what is because of what you would like to see.
          You are using Gods method of delivery as an excuse for your rejection of God. Well, it is not the method so try again.

          January 28, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • fred

          Madtown
          I suspect you will again lean on your excuse that it is not fair for that isolated tribe who never heard of God. My answer has not changed as the Bible is clear in that you are only held accountable for what you were given. In this manner it is a blessing to have never heard the Gospel preached today or the Apostle Paul preach 2,000 years ago or Moses 3,400 years ago if God knows you would reject it. God even closes the eyes and ears of some intentionally.
          You do not have that blessing because you have heard the Gospel. Now, please come up with a better excuse than God failed to use an objective delivery method therefor I reject God.

          January 28, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
      • devin

        " The percentage of Christians that believe in a 10,000 year old earth...." But it makes it sooo much easier to ridicule and attack when you set it up that way.

        January 28, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          There's just so much to ridicule, it's impossible to put enough in one post.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Topher, in a moment of clarity just now I saw that the earth, God's creation, was more perfect nearer in time to when it was created. Originally it was, of course, a perfect sphere and it was God who divided dry land from water (Genesis 1:6-8), not imperfections in the earth. Still, it was almost a perfect sphere in Noah's time. When God released the waters the earth was covered in water to a fairly uniform depth. The waters did not recede, instead the flood ended with the emergence of the continents.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
  14. L

    Has there ever been a time where atheists have been proven to be correct? Nope. Has there been a time where evidence has surfaced proving there is no God? Nope. Your atheism just got debunked. You lose atheism. You lose.

    January 28, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Has there ever been a time where people who don't believe in unicorns have been proven to be correct? Nope. Has there been a time where evidence has surfaced proving there are no unicorns? Nope. Your disbelief in unicorns just got debunked. You lose non-believers in unicorns. You lose.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • Lawrence of Arabia

        Unicorns are real, AND you believe in them...

        The Hebrew word re'em is mentioned eight times in the Bible, and signifies some kind of horned animal that could possibly be the now extinct aurochs – a wild ox related to a cow. In the Latin Vulgate however, the translators used the words “unicornis, unicornium, rinocerota, rinocerotis, and rinoceros” whose English rendering in the KJV is “unicorn” for the name of this horned animal each time it occurred: Job 39:9-10, Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Psalm 22:22, 29:6, 92:10, Deuteronomy 33:17, and Isaiah 34:7. Depending upon the context of the passage however, the authors either use the word “rhinoceros” if the intent was to speak of two horns, or “unicornis” if the intent was to mean a singular horn. In Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, the word “unicorn” has this as its entry: “An animal with one horn: the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” It goes on to say under the entry for “rhinoceros” that: “a genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.” Even today, the scientific name for the Asian one-horned rhinoceros is “Rhinoceros unicornis,” (the same word as mentioned in the Latin Vulgate) while the two-horned black rhinoceros is the “Diceros bicornis.”

        January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Since you're an idiot, I'll dumb it down for you. My response was intended to show how fvcking stupid it is to act as if a person should believe every idea that isn't disproved. Do you believe in every idea of every imaginary creature that hasn't been solidly disproved? Do you believe in a literal Santa just because he's never been shown to NOT exist?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Nevid

          No, he didn't. Rhinoceros were known in the time of the KJ translation. This is standard Christian apologetics.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • VM

          Cpt. Obvious,

          I wonder if you might want to choose a different example than unicorns. Obtuse believers seem to get so confused about your intended parallel.

          I had a tough time with another one of them a couple of days ago on the subject:
          http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/23/the-pope-takes-on-internet-trolls/comment-page-10/#comments

          January 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          VM, they get it, alright, they just think they've got to save face and continue to lie to themselves...for jesus!

          January 28, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
      • HAHAHAHAHA

        Capt. Obvious, you just got OWNED.... BAD...

        January 28, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          I sure hope you're a Christian.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I though for a moment you were going to present evidence that there are gods, or at least your God.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • L

        Why must I? This is the internet not a debate class in school or a scientific building. Atheists claim there is no God. Why don't they have to back it up when they do? It's still a claim they possess as truth and they want people to believe its truth without evidence. So atheists ARENT any different. You are in the same boat as the rest. Get over it. I know it will bruise your ego but it's a fact.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Colin

          Before you jump around your mother's basement in a victory dance, I might point out that to ask for evidence of non existence is absurd. There is no evidence God does not exist. What "evidence" could there be? Think about it. What possible evidence of non-existence can there be? By definition, there is no evidence of a negative. What evidence is there that Santa Claus does not exist? What evidence is there that the Hindu god Shiva does not exist?

          That is the fundamental difference between there being no proof of a fact and there being "no evidence of a non-fact." The latter is meaningless.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Some atheists make such a claim. How they defend it, if they want to, is up to them. Most people claim there is no reason to believe in gods, particularly your God.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          L, you fvcking moron, ALL your "arguments" could be "used" to "show" that unicorns or gnomes or the tooth fairy exist. Do you believe in every single idea that hasn't been disproved?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          "Atheists claim there is no god."

          If an atheist claims to know for a fact that no god exists, then it is correct and reasonable to expect evidence backing up the claim. But if you pay attention, most atheists here don't say that. They say "I lack a belief in a god." That is what basic atheism is. It's not a claim and it therefore it doesn't need proof. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The claimant in these debates are usually Christians, who claim that God exists. So it is on them to present proof. It is not on skeptics to disprove it.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • fred

          L
          The Sadducees and Pharisees were united in their quest to prove Jesus was not God just as the atheists on this site are united to prove no God. Jesus did not bother to give them the proof they demanded for several reasons. These Sadducees, Pharisees and atheists all had motive to deny Christ. No proof would have been sufficient to overcome there motive thus none was given. Their motive was to protect their way of life. Jesus said I am the way which was is in stark contrast with their way.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Atheism is a single stance on a single position, that of belief in a god. If a person states that they don't believe in a god then they are an atheist.

      That makes atheism true for that situation.

      You are an ID10T.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
    • ME II

      @L,
      If that's all it takes then has there ever been a time when your God has been proven TO exist? No. Okay God, debunked. Thank you very much.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
  15. devin

    Were a boat to be found perfectly preserved and encapsulated in ice on some remote Middle Eastern mountain top, and were it to be the exact dimensions and specifications given to the ark found in the biblical literature, and were it to have an inscription on the side stating " Noah, Captain of the Global High Seas" many would still bemoan " I do not believe."

    January 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • G to the T

      Not me, but I would reserve judgement until some testing could be done.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
      • devin

        I can appreciate that.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        I would have some questions:

        1. Was it built to the specs listed in the bible?
        2. If so, how did it defy the laws of physics to hold together when a wooden vessel that size could not hold together?
        3. How did it hold the animals it was purported to have held when there's not nearly enough room available?

        January 28, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • devin

          Question # 1 was already answered in my OP ( remember the reading comprehension thingy?). Questions # 2 and #3 are based on false presuppositions, which in turn makes them irrelevant.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Sorry about that, devin. Since an ark the size and shape described by the bible could not possibly hold together or support the number of animals the bible claims, I would be at just as much of a loss, since it would require "godmagic" to make it function as described. And if "godmagic" had to be employed, then "godmagic" might be at work at any time and at any place and for whatever reason, so "godmagic" would deceive or convince however god decided to employ his "godmagic" at that certain time.

          You see, once you invoke "godmagic" evidence ceases to matter. So, the "evidence" would be pointless. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the sense in this and agree.

          Your turn.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          And as far as the reading comprehension issue, I stomped all over your silly assumptions and biases and you ran away like a widdle coward once I exposed your obvious bias. Are you going to run away from logic and reasoning again, this time? I'd bet on it.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Nevid

          And you didn't answer #2 and #3, making your post irrelevant.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Run away, coward.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • devin

          Fist things first. I'm trying to decide if it is naivete or simply childishness that would cause you to make statements such as "stomped" "run away" and "cow ard" when none have any merit. I'll leave it to you to figure out. I hate to break it to you, but I do not hang around my computer 24/7 waiting for your response.

          Second. So that we are on the same page, please tell me exactly how many animals were on the boat and exactly why the boat would be unable to support that number.

          Third. What do say we leave the emotion and t i t for t a t out of the discussion?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • Observer

          devin,

          There are MILLIONS of land animals. Please do some research. Then multiply that number by 2 (or 7 from the Bible).

          January 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          No, devin, I think I prefer my Christians to be lying cowards, never facing the criticisms inherent in the stupid claims that they make when they know that they don't have to be responsible for any facts or real-world consequences. For you, and for any Christian, any excuse will do. If sensible facts show that it couldn't be the way you claim, you'll just move the goalposts, claim the bible didn't mean it the way it states it, or claim goddidit through a magical miracle, claim that a person has to be "spiritually minded" or "have the holy spirit" to understand it correctly.

          No, I'm sure you'll find an excuse, any excuse, really, to continue to be arrogant in spite of the facts and logical reasons against you. Do carry on. Think what you will of me. I think you're just perfect (as a representative of Christianity) the way you are.

          Happy posting! 🙂

          January 28, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          I wonder what devin's excuse will be, Observer? It wasn't a global flood, perhaps? The animals evolved super-rapidly after the flood? Godmagic of some sort, for sure.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • devin

          I find your inability to answer my questions and stay on topic, unfortunate. Happy posting.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Yes, run, devin, run!! Don't worry about answering Observer or answering for the obvious flaws in your logic. Just run from the reality, coward. Just promise to always focus on questions that have no relationship to anything except your ability to distance yourself from any meaningful discussion. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, though?? HUH??? You tell me that!!!! Oh please. You know when your claims are weak, and that's all of them, all the time.

          January 29, 2014 at 12:58 am |
        • S-3B Viking

          Cpt.

          Sir, please keep in mind that "running from" is an unspoken apologetic strategy of those who are afraid of those difficult pegs that don't fit their round and square holes.

          January 29, 2014 at 1:02 am |
    • Topher

      Very true.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • Observer

      Atheists and agnostics probably would accept it if it was big enough to hold MILLIONS of animals and a year's supply of food for all of them.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • Topher

        Did it need to hold millions?

        January 28, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher,

          A publication of the Public Library of Science estimates there are 6.5 MILLION land animals. Multiply that by 2 or 7 (take your pick) and that makes for a lot of animals on one ship smaller than current cruise ships..

          January 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Madtown

          Likely. We're still discovering new species, so the actual number is unknown. The "all" in this case is a lot. How did they care for the diverse ecosystems all this animals would require?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Mmmmmmm

          Yes. It needed to hold millions.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Topher
          You made a comment about my use of the word evolved on page two of the comments, you were wrong, would you care to retract?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • CommonSensed

          Not to mention genetically viable populations of the various ethnicities who were nowhere near the ME and predate the flood story according to bible calendar math.

          Anyone? Buelle? Topher? Anyone?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Topher

          Observer

          It doesn't say 2 (or 7) of every animal. It says of every KIND. So Noah didn't need to chihuahuas, two great danes, two beagles, etc. He only needed two dogs. That cuts down on your millions tremendously.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • Topher

          CommonSensed

          Ethnicities we have today would have come about after the dispersion at Babel.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          LOL, Topher believes in hyper-evolution. And he calls people who accept the facts of normal evolution deluded!!!! LOL!!!

          January 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • Topher

          Cpt. Obvious

          The only evolution I believe in is the only one we've observed ... micro.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • Madtown

          Would a Chihuahua require "new" genetic information to then becoma a Great Dane?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          Topher
          Thank you for providing another example of cowardice by not correcting the comment you made on page 2. You can always scurry away, it suits you.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • Topher

          Madtown

          "Would a Chihuahua require "new" genetic information to then becoma a Great Dane?"

          A chihuahua could not become a great dane because it lost information in the process.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • Madtown

          A chihuahua could not become a great dane
          -----
          But, you just said above that they didn't need 2 Chihuahuas and 2 Great Danes, etc, only that they needed "2 dogs". If they only brought 2 dogs, I guess we'd then only have 1 remaining canine species, right? So they must've brought them all. Or, they brought only some of them, leaving others to extinction. Which is it?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Not so, Topher. Small changes, but not necessarily new information, can change the time and duration of growth events. I am curious. Why do you make pronouncements about biology when you must know you are uniformed about it? People have called it dishonest. Are you dishonest, or do you need to learn when to be silent on some things?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
        • Topher

          Madtown

          The pair on the ark would have likely been wolves or something similar. From there natural selection could work to get these different dogs. But a chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs. This is not evolution but natural selection. Just as these dogs, thousands of generations from now, will still be giving birth to dogs.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
        • Madtown

          would have likely been wolves or something similar
          ---
          Ah, wolves. I thought that when you said dogs, you meant dogs. Are you published? With your substantial expertise in this area, you should be. If you're not, I'd recommend you write and attempt to get published. You could do a great educational service to all.

          January 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • Topher

          So now wolves are not canines? Honestly?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
        • Austin

          Topher, is that me?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          So you accept that wolves evolved into dogs?

          January 28, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Regarding his statements on biology I did ask Topher if he is dishonest or uniformed. He has not answered.

          January 28, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
    • Colin

      Yes, I would absolutely still not believe the full myth. You creationists have no real idea of the enormity of the claims you are making and the massive tidal wave of evidence that proves them wrong.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
      • devin

        Nope, I have every idea as to the enormity of the claims I am making, it's your self imposed "massive tidal wave of evidence that proves them wrong" notion that I find lacking.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Certainly no one will wave a magic wand and dissolve away your strange beliefs. Hold onto them if you want. One day we'll have museums for that, though.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
    • CommonSensed

      Not me. Still waiting for any evidence whatsoever beyond writings.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • Get Real

      devin,

      " many would still bemoan " I do not believe.""

      Poor widdle "God" - totally stumped for a way to provide real, believable evidence for all.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
  16. Douglas

    This finding multiply contradicts scripture yet again. What's funny, though, is that Christian god can't do any better than showing up once in a few thousand years, max (well, never, actually). A smart being ought to expect and accept doubt, but your god apparently doesn't.

    Stuff your stupid god stories already. You are an embarrassment to our name.

    January 28, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
    • Hope this helps

      This finding multiply contradicts scripture yet again

      Can you list a few? Preferably ones the haven't been answered and addressed yet.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • Douglas

      That was for the other Douglas, the one who is the bigot.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • Douglas

      Start with this: how big was the ark, and what shape was it? You dig.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
      • Hope this helps

        . Some argue for a box shape while others argue for something that looked more like a ship. The basis for this comes from the scant information given in Genesis:

        Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. (Genesis 6:1416)

        Keep in mind that the Bible doesnt say it was a box shape. A boxshape is assumed by taking the length, width, and height of the Ark and merely making it into a box. However, this was likely not the case, as ship dimensions are typically given as length, width, and height. This is common for other things as well. For example, a Corvette ZR1s dimensions are given as the following:

        Overall length (in / mm): 176.2 / 4476

        Overall width (in / mm): 75.9 / 1928

        Overall height (in / mm): 49 / 1244

        Are we to assume the Corvette is a box shape given only its length, width, and height? Not at all. Noahs Ark was a ship;

        January 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
  17. Jesus' Beloved

    LOVE NEVER FAILS
    54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
    56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

    There was a certain mentality toward God that flowed from period of the law and prophets to the days when Jesus and His apostles walked the earth. For with Jesus, there was a change from the priesthood of Aaron to the priesthood of Melchisedec.
    The Melchisedec priesthood was that of the Most High God, or in the Hebrew, El Elyon. It was a difficult transition for his disciples to change from the old testament concepts of wrath and judgment to the new testament concepts of love and mercy. In the above exchange between James and John and Jesus, John heard his Master well and e latter penned one of the best known scriptures of the new testament.
    "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

    John was able to change from the duality of good and evil (two eyes) to that of a single eye. Why?
    Because in the very first part of the book of John he was given the key to how Jesus and the Most High God view man.

    JOH 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men... That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

    January 28, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
    • Austin

      I think that is my favorite book. I like how John the Baptist was trained by the Holy Spirit, in the wilderness as he ate the delicacy of Kosher locusts.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        Yes, ...someone said it best: John's Jesus can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

        January 28, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
      • Jesus' Beloved

        my mistake Austin, I was referring to the apostle John. 🙂

        January 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • G to the T

        Austin – I think you've got your John's confused on this. Not surprising, it was a relatively common name at the time.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • Austin

          I hear ya, but remember that John The baptist was killed right away basically.

          ya know, its amazing that John the Baptist was in jail and he sent his friends to Jesus to ask "should we expect another Messiah", because he was in jail, and maybe expected a military ruler.

          it is like Aaron and the golden calf, or Peter. We all have our faults. but praise the Lord for His faithfulness. Our Redeemer!

          January 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • Austin

        JB i knew who you were talking about. the author of Revelation.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Get Real

          Austin,

          Then why did you pull something (and someone) else out of another book?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • Austin

          because i was talking about the Holy Spirit and it says , "there was a man who came to bear witness of that Light"

          6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

          that is referring to the Baptist, in ch 1.

          no worries bro. it is confusing. We love you.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • Get Real

          Austin,

          I read that ermine have lovely white fur in the winter - but they are still weasels!

          January 28, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • Douglas

      According to your one book, your god is so "loving" that he has murdered millions, and will torture and burn you forever if all you do is step slightly out of line. Nowadays, a being like that would get convicted of human rights malfeasance and tossed in jail, and that would be appropriate.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Hope this helps

        Can you quote a verse that says "step out of line"?

        Don't confuse justice with arrogance.

        January 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Douglas

          Get a brain, Hopey. What do you really think step out of line means? Come on, give it a try. Pick any transgression such as not worshiping your skydaddy and insert that instead, if you can't figure it out, stupid.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Observer

          "Step out of line" could be things like saying slavery is wrong or saying it's wrong to beat your kids with rods for discipline.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • Hope this helps

          stupid – dazed and unable to think clearly.
          I asked you to quote scripture of stepping out of line, you did not do that clearly.

          Now what is the penalty for treason in the USA?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Good grief. Don't you think "step slightly out of line" is just a conversational phrase? Anyway, I would say working on the Sabbath would be stepping slighty out of line, which is a no no, but many, many people do it.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Alonso

          What are some of the infractions for which Yahweh demands his followers kill people? Do you feel it would be appropriate to kill your neighbor if you saw him gathering wood on a Sunday? The biblical god demands such a punishment be meted out in Numbers 15:32-36. If you knew your neighbor cheated on his wife, do you feel it would be your duty to kill him and the other woman as is stipulated in Leviticus 20:10? Or if you have a gay neighbor, do you feel he should be put to death as Yahweh commands in Leviticus 20:13? If you had a stubborn and rebellious son, do you believe such a child should be put to death as is stipulated in Deuteronomy 21:18-21?

          I find most Christians, thankfully, ignore the abhorrent dictates of the Old Testament god, claiming that he became a kinder gentler god after he had a son, which for Trinitarian Christians is part of the god himself, and had that son/self sacrificed to himself to ameliorate the ancient curse he placed on all humans down through untold generations because a couple of humans ate of the one forbidden thing long ago, which he placed in a garden with them, when he became alarmed lest they also become immortal like himself. Though, the morality of the Old Testament god, who supports slavery, misogyny, commands the slaughter of infants (1 Samuel 15:3), etc. would by modern standards be abhorrent, I find Christians claiming biblical morality is something to be lauded. One can, of course, do so if one choose to ignore much of what is written in the Bible.

          January 29, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • Hope this helps

          "The biblical god demands such a punishment be meted out in Numbers 15:32-36."
          Yeah but your not a levitical Jew, so it doesn't

          But all sin is deserving of death.You may think that is harsh for a lie, but let's consider man made law.
          If you lie to me what is the penalty? Nothing, I may not talk to you
          If you lie to a love one? You may destroy the relationship
          If you lie to a grand jury? Jail time

          So it is not the offense but who the offense is against. If you can get jail time for lying to congress how much more server against the creator of the universe

          As for the levitical law, go learn what this means, 'I desire mercy not sacrifice.'

          January 30, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • Hope this helps

          As far as condoning slavery, it would help to learn that Western slavery is not the only type

          http://www.thevillagechurch.net/mediafiles/uploaded/0/0e1135845_1339614900_0e1135845_articledoesthebiblecondoneslavery.pdf

          http://www.thevillagechurch.net/sermon/slaveryandtheskeptic/

          January 30, 2014 at 10:54 am |
    • Honey Badger Don't Care

      Nice fable, now provide evidence for your clalim that any of this is reasonable to believe or that any of it is true.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Austin

        I have personal evidence.

        The Holy Spirit is a sanctifying spirit that bears the truth of God's word on a persons heart.

        January 28, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Your hearsay is not evidence

          January 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • Hope this helps

        The historical testimony of Jesus is well documented across many sources far surpassing any document of that time period.

        Given the way Jesus lived, taught, and died He is trustworthy and we should put our faith in his trustworthiness.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "historical testimony of Jesus" no such thing exists. There is zero evidence of the mortal existence of your Jesus... zero

          January 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Douglas

          That's BULLSHIT, Hopey. There is no testable evidence that Jesus was actually divine. Reasonable doubt, at best, is the appropriate conclusion.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Observer

          Please show us some of his writings.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Hope this helps

          Luc– so you don't think Jesus existed?
          What about Aristotle, Plato or Caesar?

          What test do you use to determine if a doc.ument is historically accurate?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Hope this helps

          So all the other people between 3BC and 30AD that didn't publish on twitter didn't exist either?

          What about Aristotle, Plato show me their original writings?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Historical figures like Plato and Aristotle had contemporaries who wrote about them. Jesus did not. There are a couple references by contemporaries but they are contested; one in particular is a likely forgery. You would think that if there was an individual who was doing the things (e.g., miracles) that Jesus was supposed to have done and who had multi.tudes following him, then there would be overwhelming contemporary evidence.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • G to the T

          You're doging the question Hope this helps. Nobody asked how we validate the existence of other historical persons. You made a claim that there was such evidence and we're asking for access to it.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Hope this helps

          Aristotle earliest manuscript 1100AD 1400 years removed
          Plato 900AD 1200 years removed.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • CommonSensed

          The fact that Jesus existed is only contested by a few. There is no evidence whatsoever of his divinity. And please don't quote zombie stories with supposed witnesses. All old news.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Hope this helps

          G read the thread. I pointed to the 27 doc.uments written about Jesus Luc and Doug said those where BS

          So the question is why do you believe some historical doc.uments but not the Gospels and the epistles.
          And what in their mind does validate the existence of other historical persons

          January 28, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    Another question:
    How did all of the world's bodies of fresh water instantly and simultaneously de-salinate after the flood?
    Why is there no evidence of this sudden salination and de-salination?

    January 28, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
    • Austin

      is the ocean getting saltier?

      January 28, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
      • Mmmmmmm

        Can you answer a direct question without hedging?

        January 28, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Mmmmmmm : Can you answer a direct question without hedging?

          So tell me, have you stopped beating your wife yet? (look up the logic fallacy of complex question) 🙂

             <><

          January 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Honey Hush

          L4H
          When the little woman does not deserve a beating she doesn't get a beating. In your case I do not think you could attract anyone even though you might enjoy the company whether he beat you or not. Such a pitiful troll, abuse yourself while thinking of jesus.

          January 28, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Mmmmmmm

          Another one of your disingenuous non-sequiturs.
          I was addressing Austin. Why do you feel you have the authority to answer for him?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        @Austin
        Not sure of the relevance of your question.
        If you put a litre of fresh water into a gallon of salt water, what happens to the fresh water?

        January 28, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • Austin

          the salt diffuses into it. from the area of higher concentration to the area of lower concentration.

          January 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
    • Austin

      good questions. I do not know. How did the great lakes fill up fresh? the continents moved, the water came up from the groundwater and fell as fresh water and collected in water pockets?

      January 28, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • Mmmmmmm

        Your Bible has all the answers, surely?

        January 28, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
      • igaftr

        austin
        The great lakes were formed when the glaciers from the last ice age receded, somewhere around 20-25,000 years ago.

        The issue of salinity is just one of the impossibilities that is the Noah myth.

        January 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Austin

          no because the waters came up, along with volcanic matter, and this warmed the temperature of the water up so that all the steam went up, and then it cooled and snowed .

          January 28, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • igaftr

          austin.
          Understand I have a great grasp of the scientific principles involved...your explaination does not fit into ANYTHING...care to give it another try?

          January 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Austin

          you may not think so but be honest, what else maybe does not fit?

          the fact is, and you may want to figure out how, the ice age came after the flood.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • G to the T

          "no because the waters came up, along with volcanic matter, and this warmed the temperature of the water up so that all the steam went up, and then it cooled and snowed"

          OK... we can agree that glaciers exist then right? I mean you can go see them.

          (Sea water = salty: No, partly because the ice at the poles melts due (mostly) to warm currents. Oh, and it rains on the sea more than on the land... cause there's more of it...

          January 28, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
      • Science Works

        What about Babe and his Blue Ox didn't they create the Great Lakes Austin ?

        January 28, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Austin

          science does work my man.

          Hey have you tried asking for the saving faith and forgiveness? Have you ever tried that? or do you reject the notion of the law of sin?

          January 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Legend Literalist

          Science Works,

          Babe IS the Blue Ox. The hero is Paul Bunyan. Praise him!

          (just can't have you blaspheming here! :))

          January 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Science Works

          Yeah little rusty on Paul- noticed that after hit post – it is a great tourist attraction in Minnesota.

          January 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Doc Vestibule : How did all of the world's bodies of fresh water instantly and simultaneously de-salinate after the flood?

      What was the salt content of the oceans prior and after the flood?

      @Doc Vestibule : Why is there no evidence of this sudden salination and de-salination?

      What evidence would you expect?

      In short, your question was the logic fallacy called complex question (or questions, since there were two).

         <><

      January 28, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
      • ?

        Or, you don't know. Admit it, already. It would be much more honest than you usually are.

        January 28, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The study of sedimentary geochemistry has revealed that the salinity levels of the oceans 4,000 years ago were virtually identical to current levels (about 35%). Prior to that (in the history of the planet that you deny exists), salinity levels were greater.

        What evidence would I expect to find? Off the top of my head, I would expect there to be a layer of millions and millions of ichthyan corpses in lake beds since every single fresh water creature would have died.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
      • G to the T

        You seem to be forgetting that most aquatic creatures absolutely cannot exist in salt water if they are fresh water animals and vice versa.

        Back to rapid evolution again?

        January 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Happy Atheist

      If a global flood happened we would have a layer of salt covering all dry land that would have prevented any new vegetation growing from the seeds of the pre-flood flora. It would have salted any previously fresh water lakes and rivers killing off any and all fresh water fish and amphibians.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • lngtrmthnkr

      Doc, consider the idea that the flood was concentrated in the middle east only . How many salt lakes are around the area? I know about the dead sea and a few lakes in north Africa.

      January 28, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • Mmmmmmm

        Which would make the Bible wrong, would it not?

        January 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        A localized flood, catastrophic to the region, seems quite likely given the prevalence of stories about it.
        The debate here is about a global flood.
        A handful of folk around here are young earth creationists who take the Bible literally (and who consider Answers in Genesis a scientific forum).
        So far as I'm concerned, the Old Testament is an apocryphal history if the Jewish people no more meant to be taken literally than Beowulf or Gilgamesh.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
    • Observer

      Classic line!

      (Mark 9:50) “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again?"

      January 28, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
  19. Douglas

    Erosion and environmental change have a way of revealing distinct markers and artifacts from the distant past.

    This discovery provides further proof of the soundness and veracity of scripture.

    There is still time to repent from a life of sin and fornication!

    Heed the signpost up ahead...choose right and you too will be glory bound!

    January 28, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • Douglas

      Actually, this finding multiply contradicts scripture yet again. What's funny, though, is that Christian god can't do any better than showing up once in a few thousand years, max (well, never, actually). A smart being ought to expect and accept doubt, but your god apparently doesn't.

      Stuff your stupid god stories already. You are an embarrassment to our name.

      January 28, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
      • Austin

        ya but the promises of God all hold water. such as the Holy Spirit, the helper, He will guide you to the truth. that would be supernatural if it is true.

        and I have experienced that as I had a battle with sin. the battle was rough, I needed a savior. I hated the idea of the bible being true, yet i was dying in my flesh. so I called on the God of the bible and He responded clearly.

        January 28, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
    • bushgirlsgonewild

      more bs.

      May 13, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.