 |
|
|
|
|
January 28th, 2014
10:37 AM ET
Noah's Ark discovery raises flood of questionsOpinion 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. soundoff (5,820 Responses)« Previous 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 Next »
« Previous entryAngry birds! Pope's peace doves attacked
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rhdl0rdht8
This is going to be GREAT!
creationists could win every debate on this subject for the next 1000 debates, it still wouldn't make creationism any less wrong. A debate can't change a fact, and the facts are that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old. The scale of that error is mind blowing. A debate can't change a fact, and the facts are that evolution is proven and observable. A debate can't change a fact, and the fact is that the bible is a flawed book of stories by bronze age goat herders.
True about the debates, but evolution is most certainly NOT proven. Even science rejects it. And how do you know the earth is that old? Were you there? Oh, wait, it's historical science and thus can't be proven.
topher
sceince does not reject evolution, and the age of the earth is fact.
Why you reject it for a book of myths is just willful ignorance.
igaftr
Please explain to me how evolution is testable, repeatable and demonstrable.
Please demonstrate just one instance of a change in kinds.
Please explain how an animal, over thousands of generations becomes another things when it only has the genetics to make what it already is.
Please explain where that additional genetic information comes from when we only see losses of information.
Topher,
Read something on evolution other than apologist responses. The whole "loss of information" is a dead giveaway. The entire field of biology (among other related fields), for more than 150 years, has proceeded and developed with evolution as its core principle. Paraphrasing Dawkins, it is perverse to believe evolution hasn't happened.
topher
Change in kinds? What "kinds" are you talking about? I can't dumb myself down that much.
Animal classifications are:Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class Order, Family Genus, Species.
Kind is far too subjective, which is likely why you chose it, to try to throw more smoke.
A simple study of genetics will show the evolutionary process in great detail.
"True about the debates, but evolution is most certainly NOT proven. Even science rejects it. And how do you know the earth is that old? Were you there? Oh, wait, it's historical science and thus can't be proven."
Evolution IS PROVEN. Please give me scientific sources that reject it. Give me evidence that the dating methods are wrong despite them all confirming one another. Were you there? Are you a scientist? You are an absolute joke, clinging on to an archaic worldview based on ancient fairy tales, while you sit back and selectively deny scientific discoveries. Why do you have a computer? Computers are products of science. Denying evolution is so 200 years ago. Get with the times.
"Please explain to me how evolution is testable, repeatable and demonstrable."
Every fossil dig tests evolution, i.e. there is a chance that a find will contradict the predicted order, e.g. a human alongside dinosaurs, rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. These fossil digs are repeated by numerous individual researchers/groups. The same is true with every genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis, i.e. testable, repeatable. Evolution is demonstrable by looking at populations over time, with accompanying genetic and behavioral/morphological changes; sometimes culminating in new species, e.g. Lenski's E. coli, Pod Mrcaru lizards, speciation/radiation of African cichlids, etc.
"Please demonstrate just one instance of a change in kinds."
"Kinds" has not been adequately defined, other than the creationist claim of a taxonomic level which cannot be breached. Nonetheless, the fossil record shows forms which bridge the major vertebrate classes, i.e. fish with tetrapod features, lizards with avian features, reptiles with mammalian features, etc. This demonstrates that "kinds" can be bridged and are not inherently fixed.
"Please explain how an animal, over thousands of generations becomes another things when it only has the genetics to make what it already is."
The fact is a population's gene pool does change over time and is not fixed. You possess ~ 120 mutations not found in either of your parents. As the gene pool changes, the morphology/behavior changes too. Certain changes can produce a sub-population which can no longer interbreed with the parental population, i.e. speciation. As this process continues, more change, more species, and over time, the morphological changes are sufficient to readily distinguish into different genera, families, orders, classes, phlya.
"Please explain where that additional genetic information comes from when we only see losses of information."
We don't only see loss of information. We see duplication and lateral gene transfer among other mechanisms which add genetic material. In various plants, we see whole genome duplications. Furthermore, "information" is not a proper term to apply here; the better term is functionality. Examples of increased and novel functionality are again provided by Lenski's E. coli and the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Furthermore, we compare genomes of organisms to pinpoint precisely where and when these increases have taken place.
It is going to be great, hilarious comedy. I only wish Topher was somehow invited to be a part of it, that would be even better. Much more funny.
that such a high % of americans believes in creationism is making America a laughing stock.
If 60% of any country disbelieved gravity, we would laugh at them too.
utterly asinine.
So long as there are theocracies in the world, we just look bad for all the bombs we drop on others.
Actually its less than 30% now that follow biblical literalism (and deny evolution)and it's steadily declining. Even the pope agrees with evolution. Die hard creationists need to worry about their own religion and their personal relationship with god, instead of going on this silly crusade against science and evolution when they know nothing about it. It's like listening to a 1st grader talk try to say that calculus is wrong after just learning basic addition and subtraction.
"I suppose the reason we leaped at 'The Origin of Species' was because the idea of God interfered with our se.xual mores (values)." – Sir Julian Huxley
Is our mystery 'abuse reporter' at work again?
The good conversation with some logic are always deleted... Maybe it's not going the way the moderator likes!
JW: I don't think it's the moderator sadly but yes, some interesting conversations have disappeared, including many of the ones you've had.
Check out the podcast JW ?
TTA Podcast 127 – Jehovah's Witnesses
It's is one of the most unusual and mysterious churches (cults?) in the world.
let's discuss our two options as being atheist or theist, shall we.
ATHEIST: mainly relies on scienctific discoveries that show how the universe was "made" and our place in this universe.
evolution explains why humans have short life spans and have genetic illness and viral diseases that afflict us.
THEIST: humans were created from dirt and tricked an all knowing god by doing something he didn't know we would do. XD
the humans have short life spans due to punishment from all knowing god, and we are all IMBRED three times over again seeing god only created a couple of humans, then wiped those out with a flood then wiped out a whole region leaving only a few alive.
MY VIEW: i would rather be the way i am due to evolutionary adaptations that continue to strenghten my species, then......well being an imbred simpleton due to some weak and know-nothing "god".
WASP
Atheist...does not believe in deities.
That is all. What any given individual does believe in is not addressed. Atheism is simply NOT believing in gods. Your definition goes on to say what they believe, which is NOT correct, since what any individual believes is not defined by the non-belief in deities.
This is what I gather from most believers. Of course they will comment as they want.
We are the pinnacle of God's creation. We fell into evil as God knew we would. It was all part of a master plan that eventually involved God becoming a god-man, and his deicide and resurrection, all so that we could be restored to a close relationship with God by believing all this, repenting from our evil ways and obeying God (his principal command is that we convince other people of all this). The purpose of it all is to create something by which God is glorified.
For Your Info...
Lawrence of Arabia on page 13 of this topic Jan 19, 2014 @ 3:42 PM has elevated his status to Sainthood, in light of this revelation I urge all my fellow posters to address him as Saint Lawrence, Saint Larry or Saint LofA. Thank you, carry on.
LoA: Sorry you fail to use proper definitions, so let me help...this is from Websters (you know an actual dictionary-you do know what that is...right???)
SAINT
1: one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness
2a : one of the spirits of the departed in heaven
b : angel
Saint LofA
I will continue to point out to others your positions...
"No, I am a layman, but as a saint, I am a priest of the Most High God, as are all his saints."
"And I'll say this one more time...I don't interpret the bible. I don't have the authority to do that. I simply read it. The bible interprets itself."
"I don't have opinions about scripture.... I just read it as it is, and let it speak for itself."
Well there you have it our Saint reveals himself, he has the only truth of that must apply to all others on earth. We should all bow before this High Priest.f
Saint LofA
I did briefly skim through your posts from the mythical book that you believe in, I do not share your beliefs, I will stick with the comments you have posted to show how pompous and arrogant you are. Pope Francis, "Catholics should not be arrogant in insisting that they alone posses the truth." Too bad that comment did not apply to you.
Saint LofA
Actually the idea of a PERSONAL god the one that knows what I get up to and will judge me upon my death is something anyone can reject, period. Get over yourself, you believe in one of the many man made gods, good for you but that does not make you the ultimate truth bearer that you think you are.
then allow me to rephrase:
athiests don't believe in gods, yet use science to explain the universe around us. is that better?
theists think a "god did it"
atheists think......well whatever they wish to think; however judging by the use of science from the atheist community on this blog, i would say most follow science as being the correct answer. i will give that some atheists wouldn't care either direction, however without a stand point to debate from which, simply "i don't believe as you do" wouldn't really get people very far and this blog would be incredibly boring.
as far as the theist portion, they use their "holy books" which prodominately consist of all of creation coming from two humans, logic would show that two humans means that humans from creation would have to have imbred to create more of themselves; ironically they avoid that point and very few theists look at their "creation myth" very closely any way.
so my post isn't inaccurate or "forcing words into the mouths" of atheists or theists; it's simply stating a known fact.
most atheist disagree with theists and use science as their tool of choice.
most theists argue with atheists using their "scripture" as their chosen tool.
wasp
"athiests don't believe in gods, yet use science to explain the universe around us. is that better"
No not at all better.
Atheists don't believe in gods. STop there...anything further is speculation about what the individual atheist believes, when you have NO IDEA what each individual believes. That is a major trap I see other atheists and theists fall into...projecting belief based on what the individual does not believe.
it should have read:
Atheists don't believe in god...anything further is speculation.
i'm not speculating and i did make myself clear in the above passage.
i stated that atheists don't believe in gods; however what other means do atheists use to defend their stand point as to why they don't believe in gods............well other than just reading the religious text from cover to cover;studying known history and following the logical findings in science?
if atheists and theists only shouted at each other "i don't believe as you believe" what exactly would be accomplished without being able to provide counter points to a theists points from their scripture?
how would you defend stating that their gods don't exsist, or that the world wasn't created by a god without some kindof knowledge to debate from?
it's a very simple thing to say "i don't believe in your gods" until they start pushing their questions at you and you can't answer them, so what common stand point do most atheists use to debate from? non-belief? that would be a very short debate indeed.
WASP
Sort of like debating which stork made the drop ?
@science works: huh? a stork? what does anything have to do with a stork unless you are refering to the whole "storks bring babies" thing? you totally lost me. XD
I would've said, "Atheists do not have a belief in a god." It is more complicated than that, though. A weak/negative atheist would say, "I do not have a belief in a god" whereas a strong/positive atheist would say "God does not exist". "I don't believe in God" to me is closer to a strong/positive statement. Also, you can be a weak/negative atheist with respect to some gods and a strong/positive atheist with respect to others. I am a weak/negative atheist with respect to a non personal god who created the universe and has not interacted with it since. I am probably a strong/positive atheist with respect to the Christian god as commonly conceived.
Some (like Richard Dawkins) say "no," as it would be akin to an obstetrician debating a proponent of the "stork theory" of reproduction. Others insist that the debate is not only appropriate, but necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBMUUU4Iou4
PAnthrotheism-God created himself through the big bang 13.7 billion years ago,and the universe evolved including us humans,at a certain point of our evolution,He willed us to establish religions with Dogmas that corresponds to our times of existence and we will be united in the future through the doctrines of oneness with Him
LMFAO!
THANKS i needed a good laugh this mourning DEV. no, seriously thanks for the laugh.
there STILL is no such thing as panthrotheism.
Maybe I need a straightjacket, face facts
I am nuts for real, but I'm okay with that
It's nothing, I'm still friends with the...
monster
That's under my bed
Get along with the voices inside of my head
You're trying to save me
Stop holding your breath
And you think I'm crazy
Yeah, you think I'm crazy
Well, that's nothing
anytime anyone ever quotes eminem, it is an instant fail.
Why? He's one of the most talented lyricists on the planet.
i love that song...............given mainly rihanna's portion, but still a good song. XD
The Rihanna portion is the part that makes me not want to listen.
And the bigger question is did Noah even exist? Other than the OT/Torah is there any other evidence?
Of course not...definitely not for over 900 years, and the rest of the story is impossible. Just a myth. Same as the epic of gilgamesh that Noah's flood was copied from...just a story.
Unfounded religious belief just doesn't float my boat. Sorry.
I do.
This is how oral traditions grow. there is a bad flood in Mesapatamia. So a farmer takes his family and two of each farm animal on a boat and floats them to safety. This was probably done by dozens of people in dozens of places over centuries, the Hebrew version becomes a miracle where two of every animal is taken and they stay afloat for 40 days and 40 nights, kind of like the 30 years wandering in the wilderness (pretty small area unless you really can't read a compass) exagerated with each telling.
There is no great mystery. Great archeological find but there a several seperate stories about a great flood in the Middle East. Most likely the land bridge between the Black Sea and the Mediteranian collapsing and the Black Sea being formed flooding whold cities now being found by Balard.
Even less dramatic than that I suspect. A big flood of both the Tigris and Euprates at their confluence would have covered the whole (known) world to people who lived there.
It is easy to imagine a flood that spread to all horizons at the confluence of flooding on both rivers.
Scott, you speak if you where there...
All tribal nations around the world recount the same story... That men where saved in a vessel, that there was a deluge, that men and animal where saved through an ark, etc..
So what is the difference between his story and the ones you spin? Are your accounts more real because the involve a god? You weren't there when those stories were written either but you act like you were.
The flood account was written by Moses.. He certainly lived much closer to the time of the flood then any book writer of today that ridicules the deluge.
No evidence to support the flood, no evidence to support Moses' existence either. Stop spinning the tale to fit your delusions...it shows nothing more than how truly gullible you are...amazing how belief can stop a functioning brain from opening!
Not enough evidence to support the evolution of the species...including the evolution of the chimp...
And the Mesopotamian accounts are even closer to the "event" than the account attributed to Moses. So why do you believe the much later jewish retelling, rather than the older accounts, JW?
You obviously don't have even a fundamental grasp of evolution, JW. I recommend the book "Why Evolution is True" by Professor Jerry Coyne. It's an easy to read explanation of evolution with an overview of some of the evidence that supports it. Perhaps if you read it, you wouldn't sound so ignorant on the topic.
The epic of Gilgamesh, or the story of the Hindhu gods was written before Moses wrote it... Though they still match!
There it a lot of debate regarding evolution even in between scientists... Obviously evolution of species never happened, not even the old tribes of the world have such thing included within the stories they have!
These stories probably came from a common source. It's very obvious that the bible borrowed from earlier stories. That's the whole point, JW. The story of Noah is plagiarized from the older story of Utnapishtim.
"Obviously evolution of species never happened"
We've actually witnessed it happen, both in the lab and in the wild, i.e. speciation. The fossil record shows a progression of life, replete with transitional forms bridging the allegedly specially-created kinds. Phylogenetic analysis confirms the relationships indicated within the order of the fossil record.
"Not enough evidence to support the evolution of the species...including the evolution of the chimp"
How's that tailbone, JW?
"All tribal nations around the world recount the same story.
I really don't think that they do.
We can start by Guilgamesh, in the Middle East, the Hindhu account of their gods, or the Greek mythology...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Many do tell a flood story. You conclude that means the story is likely true. Other people conclude that it is a very old story simply retold by the Jews. Still others point out ways similar stories could emerge as independent creations within the myths of different groups.
Yet no world tribe has in their records stories talking about, the evolution of the chimp to men...
Before you dismiss evolution, JW, the least you could do is have a basic understanding of it. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. One did not evolve from the other. It's sad that an adult (at least I'm guessing that you are an adult) has less comprehension of evolution than an average third grader.
I'm not up on origin myths, JW. Some are pretty strange.
Here's a tribal flood myth from the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime. No animals rescued on boats as the theme.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aus/mla/mla09.htm
Frog thought that eel wriggling looked funny and laughed the flood out of his belly.
Another version of the same dreamtime story is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiddalik
No boats – just Tiddalik the Frog.
@JW,
The Epic Of Gilgamesh is exactly where the Hebrews got their flood story. Traditionally Abraham* came from Ur – where the Epic of Gilgamesh story comes from, they just morphed Utnapishtim into Noah.
* Not likely a historical figure.
Talluah- evolution chimp- men suddenly stopped... And there are not even a story of older tribe that recount that evolution.
Ya they have that programme of evolution in school... But I like to do research first then just believing in a person just because that person has some university degree! With all respect!
JW,
Human evolution has NOT stopped! It is still going on. You are different from your parents. Your children (assuming you have them) will be different from you. We cannot easily foresee how the human race will look a million years from now. It is a very slow process. It is not discernible from one generation to the next. In spite of the fact that we can manipulate our environment to suit us, our genes still react to that environment. Some traits will be more successful and will result in more offspring. Over long periods of time, the resulting changes can be quite dramatic. If you broke off a group of humans, and they had no interbreeding with the rest of humanity, millions of years later they would probably no longer be able to interbreed with the rest of us. They would be a separate species.
One thing that concerns me is that less intelligent people seem to be having more offspring. I'm worried that the intelligence of our species may have hit a plateau, and could degrade.
@JW
What research did you do?
GOP-
These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories.
When chimps and humans last had a common ancestor both species were more than five million years from their appearance.
Psst! Hey JW, your complete ignorance is showing! Learn something about evolution before trying to discuss it. Honestly, I'm wondering if this is the real JW or just a troll posting under the name. Usually JW doesn't seem this stupid. Delusional, yes, but not this stupid.
@JW,
you made the statement:
Alltribal nations around the world recount the same story.
They simply don't. Most do have a flood myth – which is hardly surprising because floods are terrifying, but they don't all have the same themes as the Gilgamesh/Utnapishtim/Noah story – other than a flood.
Oh, yes, very strange that civilizations that sprung up along major waterways would have doom and gloom stories involving water.
Try not to twist the story too much, JW. Since many of these stories predate the bible, it would be the bible that lines up with the past accounts.
There is interesting evidence of continuing evolution in humans that's been seen among groups that have lived at high altitude for many generations. Something about the vasculature of the uterus. I'll find the paper.
Some today recount seeing Big Foot running in the woods... May that be the half human, half chimp that never evolved??
Why the chimp to human evolution has stopped?
Some evidence that evolution in humans is ongoing:
Moore LG, Charles SM, Julian CG. Humans at high altitude: hypoxia and fetal
growth. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2011 Aug 31;178(1):181-90.
JW, chimps are not evolving into humans. Right now they are facing extinction, but over the last 5 to 10 million years they've come into being just as we have over the same time. They are the current representatives of their lineage, and, if they survive, will likely evolve into something a bit different from what they are now over the next few million years.
JW
"Why the chimp to human evolution has stopped?"
Humans did not evolve FROM chimps, but from a common ancestor species that lived some 6 – 8 million years ago.
Here is a simplified chart that might help you understand a bit: (chart is near the bottom of the page)
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
"Yet no world tribe has in their records stories talking about, the evolution of the chimp to men"
Evolution takes a lonnnnnggg time
It is not a presto-change-oh thing
it's ongoing, the written record of tribes is far past the point which we split off from other primates such as chimps
And this new find in TEXAS JW some 200 million years ago ?
Texas Tech University. "Triassic-age 'swamp monster': Rare female phytosaur skull found in West Texas more than 200 million years old." ScienceDaily. 29 January 2014.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129145634.htm
"There it a lot of debate regarding evolution even in between scientists... Obviously evolution of species never happened, not even the old tribes of the world have such thing included within the stories they have!"
Please cite me a recent debate on the validity of evolution amongst scientists. The only debates going on right now are the minute details like exact dates and filling in gaps for fossils that haven't been found yet. Evolution is accepted universally by scientists and even the Pope agrees with it now. It's solid verified science. Denying it is like denying the earth is round. You have to have your head completely buried in the sand to deny science like that. I mean you are using a computer to tell us this, which was created using science, yet you instantly pretend it's not valid. Please explain this hypocrisy!
And why would old tribes have evolution included in their stories? It takes millions of years. It's not like one person could observe it in their lifetime or even 10 lifetimes. Looking at fossils and genetics, however, it's obvious. Ancient tribes did not have access to fossils and genetic data, so expecting them to tell stories about evolution is beyond stupid. How do you even come up with that?
Dishonesty is major problem in today's world. If you are going to deny science you need to present data that contradicts or falsifies it. I'm guessing you have not done this. You are so blinded by faith in ancient stories that you do not think objectively or critically anymore. It's a shame. I'm just glad, young earth creationists like you are disappearing. Only the most fundamentalist minorities of Christianity still cling to literal translations of the bible as truth.
@JW: you are either the most ignorant person i've ever met, or just bluntly lieing.
if there isn't any proof of evolution then please explain;
cromagnon
Neandertal
Gigantopithecus
so either your "devil" or "god" placed those bones to confuse simple minded people (aka: religious folks) or they are cousins to our modern h0m0sapien selves.
tallulah13
These stories probably came from a common source. It's very obvious that the bible borrowed from earlier stories. That's the whole point, JW. The story of Noah is plagiarized from the older story of Utnapishtim.
-------
Funny how JW keeps ignoring this.
So I'm to assume that you were there, JW?
"Not enough evidence to support the evolution of the species...including the evolution of the chimp..."
Bahahahaha! I love how you state things so matter of fact as if you know for sure that your worldview is correct. Forget the people that spend decades studying the earth and biology. They all know nothing. You know more than all of them cuz you read the bible and the bible never lies! 😆
Human evolution from ancient apes is one of the most well docu.mented and evidence backed transitions in the history of evolution. We've found virtually every species in between, which is well over 20 and counting now. Stop with the lies and denial of science. It only makes creationists look bad (unless that's your goal).
Bones McCoy
"Forget the people that spend decades studying the earth and biology. They all know nothing. You know more than all of them cuz you read the bible and the bible never lies! "
=>Guess you know about spiritual matters than the Apostle Paul, Jesus, Moses, Abraham and perhaps God. Your conclusion goes both ways does it not?
Bones
I could have said more but you probably knew that.
The story of Noah's Ark in the bible is not feasible. I am a biologist who specializes in animal behavior. I have studied species, both wild & domestic,from all five animal kingdoms.
I could give you a hundred reasons why, in regard to the animals, that the ark is laughable. Here's #1: Stress Myopathy. It is a physiological response to stress that can result in death in a matter of hours. Such stress would include capture, confinement, being held in conditions radically different from the normal habitat and housing prey animals within odor detection range of predators. Google it if you need more.
I will try to have time later for reason #2 etc.
BTW I know the die-hards will just say that god did "such & such" to overcome it. But if god had, say, put the animals in suspended animation, it would have made a big impression on Noah. Such an amazing show of god's power would not have been left out of the story.
Of course it's not.
Stress Myopathy? You mean like what we subject our ancestors to while they are waiting around for experimentation and vivisection? Let's see, they are captured,confined, held in conditions radically different from their normal habitat... " And yet, they live for generations under these conditions.
The fact that one is a biologist does not always translate into said individual being logical.
Did I miss the part of Genesis where it talks about the veterinarian onboard with a stash of drugs like cortisone?
You are not logically following through with your premise. Such experimentation on primates that you are referencing takes place within modern veterinary medical facilities. What did Noah have on hand?
Have you ever traveled to a third world country and observed the abuses of animal captivity? I have. I have seen animals taken out of the wild, placed in deplorable living conditions and subjected to all the stresses you suggest., without veterinary intervention. Guess what, many of them survive much longer than the time period required by Noah's expedition.
I don't need the capability of deciphering the human genome, I know that's genetics, to rebut your premise, just a little common knowledge.
Devin – What word in your statement holds the key to why you are wrong? "Many". Many wild animals do survive capture, etc. but many do not. Regarding Noah's Ark, the death of just ONE animal on board would mean extinction for that species. Without crunching some numbers, based on my experience, I would predict an animal mortality rate of about 50%.
" based on my experience, I would predict an animal mortality rate of about 50%" I'm curious as to how you would have gained such " experience" caring for animals on a boat in those specific living conditions for that specific a time period? Isn't there something in the scientific method that talks about verification of hypothesis by repeatable experimentation?
Look, here ultimately is our dilemma. You approach this thing from a strictly "naturalism" perspective. Obviously in accepting the bible as true, I factor in the supernatural. I'm sure you view this as a cop out, and that's okay. For me, God preserving some animals on a boat for a little while is not a stretch.
devin
"For me, God preserving some animals on a boat for a little while is not a stretch."
Translation:
"some animals" = "likely millions of animals"
"little while" = "nearly a year"
"For me, God preserving some animals on a boat for a little while is not a stretch."
But it's clearly far more than this. Literalism requires the temporary suspension of virtually every known physical law to accommodate the Genesis narrative, but then with an equally miraculous outcome which produces a physical record that empirically indicates an ancient earth and evolution. It's the defense of a narrative in which the biblical deity drowns humanity, including children, infants and fetuses; this latter group judged not on any actual exercise of free will to choose evil. In other words, literalism requires the deity be both deceptive and indiscriminately cruel.
red
As I have stated many times before, if you accept the idea, which I do, that"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" ( out of nothing) then other instances of supernatural intervention are worrisome.
I would be dishonest if I did not acknowledge the fact that the destruction of the majority of the human race seems exceptionally bru tal. It, along with some other actions by God in the Old Testament, is a philosophical struggle to which I don't have sufficient answers. What I do know is that in the flood narrative we are told that the thought and intents of men's hearts were continually, always ev il. Coupled with this is statement by God that the s ins of the fathers will be visited upon future generations. I take the whole biblical narrative into account, and what I find is a loving God, who is also sovereign and just and who works all things out after the counsel of his own will. I am a created being, He is the creator, for me it is sufficient. I realize this is unacceptable to you, I just thought I'd give my perspective in case you were interested.
Oops "not worrisome" That wasn't freudian:)
"It, along with some other actions by God in the Old Testament, is a philosophical struggle to which I don't have sufficient answers."
I appreciate your honesty and with all due respect, I'd offer that excusing these confounding issues (pre-emptive execution of children/infants for sins of their fathers, without an actual exercise of free will) in favor of those passages professing love and mercy is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. It's akin to the defense a battered wife offers for her abusive husband. Perhaps the question is why would you make such exceptions?
@devin: ok let's take this from an even closer biological stand point; what is the minimum number of a species you need to have a viable population. (hint: it's more than 2)
so according to bibical "history" there shouldn't be a single living thing on this planet due to imbreeding from two common parents; that goes for us humans as well.
imagine your parents were the ONLY humans on earth; who would you procreate with? answer either your mother or your sister regardless after a couple generations your DNA would be sooo messed up you would all become extinct.
red
"why would you make such exceptions"
I do so because the preponderance of information I find in the bible points me to a HOLY God who alone is perfect in both love and justice. It also reveals to me a God who, with in this same context of perfect love and justice, operates completely independent of human input and rationality. He sees the WHOLE picture, not simply our finite perspective. The apostle Paul, when dealing with some of these same difficult questions asks, " Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has become His instructor? For me, I take the entirety of the propositional truth God has revealed about Himself, even the difficult, and I find it to be true.
Devin,
No offense intended, but it sounds to me when you say this, that you are perfectly willing to just make things up if it will help rationalize your beliefs.
There is no evidence–not even Biblical "evidence"–that Noah used drugs on the animals. This is totally made up.
This is the problem when your starting point is that certain ancient and patently fantastic stories MUST be true–you wind up adding more and more unsupported assertions, one after another, to try to justify the whole tall tale. But what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All it takes is a slight puff of scrutiny to bring this entire house of cards to an epic collapse.
@devin – A child killer may have been a wonderful person for many years before and after the act is discovered. Does the preponderance of good behavior excuse the bad behavior from culpability?
What you're suggesting sounds very similar to a Nuremberg Defense, i.e. a willingness to abdicate any personal responsibility in evaluating the behaviors/orders of a perceived superior. It also sounds like the primary motive in avoiding an assignment of culpability is the promise of reward/fear of punishment. Is there no conflict of interest between these threats and promises and the ability to freely evaluate the morality of child/infant killing depicted in the bible?
Maybe the real test is whether one is willing to forego the promise of rewards, accept the potential punishment, and stand firm in withholding their allegiance to a deity that would kill children/infants?
Furthermore, animals used in experimentation are specifically bred and raised in captivity to avoid such complications. It is obvious to me that you are out of your field and making extreme as.sumptions.
Cherilyn B
How about the lack of exercise for the animals? How about their requirements for fresh meat, plants, etc.?
Is there anything reasonable about how millions of animals could survive such conditions?
Hi, Observer – I just finished reading the story of Noah's Ark (KJV). From a biological point of view, I did not see anything supportable beyond the obvious.
It is nothing beyond the story of a family that survives a regional flood with a small group of most likely indigenous animals that are of domesticated stock. Like all legends, it grew in scope over time.
Cherilyn B,
Yes. Maybe a guy living in an area that occasionally flooded built a boat and took his family and pets on it for a few days.
That would make sense and not require science fiction.
I'm a molecular biologist myself. No takers on why there are between twenty and thirty major haplogroups of the Y chromosome among modern human males, but only three males survived the Flood.
Magic.
Thanks for the research, but what you cannot explain is how did God intervene with the animals behaviour. God could've guided the animals to the ark and given the animals the mental stability to stay confined for awhile.
I'm curious, JW. If it was clearly stated in the Bible that the Flood story may or may not be true, and that God does not care whether or not you believe it, would you still believe it?
If scientists now said that what they believed for many decades, like the evolution of the species, and the chimp man, after all could've been a mistake, would you still preach the theory of evolution, or believe in it?
I presume that would be motivated by evidence. Many things people once believed have been shown to be false by new observations, better experiments etc., and we had to let go of those things. We would have to discard evolution if evidence weighed against it.
Unfortunately, JW, there is no evidence against evolution, nor is there any evidence of any alternative view. Not a single religion or world view can be confirmed. Evolution is confirmed, however. The geological column proves the evolutionary progression of species. Not once has a modern animal been found in older strata or vice versa. To falsify evolution all you would need is ONE species to be out of place out of the millions found, but this has NEVER happened (aside from known hoaxes). Now why do you supposed that is?
Seriously though. Unless you are a biologist, JW, you have no reason to dismiss evolution, as you have not studied the field at all and can't possibly have the same knowledge about it as somebody that spends decades upon decades trying to learn how it works.
JW,
If God can overcome all the problems described by Cherilyn and Tom Tom, as well as the huge logistical problems, the fact that there's not enough water on the Earth, and so on through magic, then why couldn't god just smite the evil humans and leave innocents people, babies, and all the rest of the innocent life on Earth intact? Just smite the evil ones dead, simple, quick, and certainly far more moral.
My thought exactly, Dan!
He's obviously not all powerful nor is he all knowing. So much for that! I mean if he knew in advance what would happen he could have easily created humans to not succ.umb to their emotions and desires so easily. He could have changed their hearts. Yet he decides to take a round about approach and kills everything on earth in a long process when he could have just snapped his fingers and changed it all in a snap.
"Thanks for the research, but what you cannot explain is how did God intervene with the animals behaviour. God could've guided the animals to the ark and given the animals the mental stability to stay confined for awhile."
God could have just told the "sinners" to quit doing whatever it was that they were doing to make him angry, too, instead of this whole complicated genocide thing.
with given technology, if today's scientists can't build a vessels, made of rope, and coated in pitch that can actually float, forget about cargo, then I can say for sure people back then were out of this world.
No, you can say that it is myth that the vessel was ever built.
why do scholars have to look crazy?
I am curious. After the flood, when the doors of the Ark opened and the animals walked out, why did the Penguins have to walk 20,000 miles to find a place to live? Couldn't they just have migrated north 500 miles? Why walk so far? It must have taken hundreds of years to waddle that far. And why are their no bones, or evidence that Penguins were in Australia, Africa, India, Indonesia, etc? Surely they didn't swim from Egypt to Antartica...
Fossils found in Lazio, a region of central Italy that includes Rome, suggest that the area at one time had a climate more like that of Africa, for hippopotamuses, gazelles, and even big cats once roamed in this region. In fact, fossils of one cat, dubbed the leopard of Monte Sacro, were found right in the heart of Rome. At the Polledrara deposit outside the city, more than 9,000 fossil remains have been unearthed, representing a diversity of animals: ancient elephants, buffalo, deer, Barbary apes, rhinoceroses, and aurochs—large oxen that were driven to extinction about four centuries ago. A museum at the site provides an elevated walkway for visitors to view the fossils in their original locations.—See page 16.
A cave near Palermo, Sicily, was filled with many tons of remains, including the fossilized bones of deer, oxen, elephants, and hippopotamuses of various ages—even a fetus. In fact, 20 tons of fossils found their way onto the market in the first six months after the site was discovered!
In Southern England, paleontologist J. Manson Valentine discovered fossil beds containing massive deposits of splintered bones of many of the same animals as well as of hyenas and polar bears. What is the reason for these large beds of fossils in such diverse places?
Some scientists believe that the circ.umstances in which the animals died are consistent with a natural catastrophe. Whatever the cause or causes of such mass extinctions, their effects were felt over a large area that included mainland Europe, the British Isles, Siberia, and Alaska.
Where did you lift this from?
Watchtower Online Library:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009169
I thought proper citation techniques were taught in middle school, but the internet has taught me that either a lot of folks didn't get that far in school, or that dishonesty thrives in anonymity.
Sarasw- it's on WOL, though the quotes where taken from other book... They are not a product of JW.
So, you plagiarized someone else's hard work, JW? As in...stole? Isn't that...ahem...one of the Top Ten?
You should try reading about glacial periods and ice ages. There have been tons of them. The world has been bouncing back and forth between warm and cold for 2.5 million years at least (Antarctic glaciation). It's not a surprise that you would see animals migrating as a result, and many extinctions happening right around when the last ice age (glacial period really) ended.
T-Roy,
When the doors of the Ark opened, the millions of animals on board started out. After almost a year bobbing around in a relatively small boat by today's standards, some of the animals walked out only to be immediately slaughtered as a sacrifice to God because he loves the smell of the burning flesh.
Wow, can we please stop being tolerant of the press putting forth stuff like this that absolutely jumps to conclusions that are way outside the objective realm? I don't have time to reference all the tricky little things woven in here, but the most glaringly obvious is this statement which sets up the undermining of Biblical historicity:
"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)."
Really? Because I couldn't find a single "biblical scholar" who puts the flood anywhere near here... Pretty historically agreed upon that David and Saul were in the 10th Century B.C., and Moses somewhere in the 1500s B.C., and the flood seems to be dated by most in the 4000s B.C.
I expect this kind of garbage from private blogs and YouTube comments, but from CNN?!? Can we please start demanding journalistic integrity people, getting really tired of being "indoctrinated" by the press...
I'm still in a stupor wondering why you hold CNN in such high journalistic regard? 🙂
Yeah, touche' Devin, I guess I just expect people to tell the truth, especially when elevated to this level. Whether or not "we" dismiss them as a source, there are countless people out there being mislead by "legitimate" news like this... just frustrates me.
Jon Price,
Watch FAUX News for a while and then maybe you'll appreciate CNN.
Historicity of the bible
That's a laugh to start with. You do realize the author is not trying to date Noah's flood. He is talking about flood stories from Sumeria that pre-date the existence of Abraham and the whole notion of the Hebrews as a people.
If you want to talk about historicity, it is Abraham who brought fertile cresent flood stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh with him from Ur.
There are multiple versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh that date as far back as 1800 BCE. This tablet dates to ~2000 BCE.
Thank you! I despair of people sometimes!
Not sure who you're referencing, but I do hope you get help with that...
And just in case my meaning was unclear, "Abraham" was not likely a historical figure, but the idea of the ancestors of the Hebrews migrating west from Ur into Canaan seems reasonable and the 'Patriarch' as some kind of composite figurehead for this movement is a useful common reference point.
I can see where you're coming from, the problem I have is that saying "We have known for well over a century that there are flood stories from the ancient Near East that long predate the biblical account" can certainly be construed either way, and the way I read it was that "flood stories from the ancient Near East" (date of that flood) long predate the Biblical account (date of the flood referenced in the Bible). If the author means that we now have a physical source of the flood story that is 1,000 years older than the oldest physical record of Genesis, then just say that. I don't know what you're referring to in regards to Abraham and Gilgamesh, but it sounds like something interesting I'll try and research sometime.
The overall issue I have with this article is that it says things that can be confused (like the above statement, assuming you're correct on the author's intent), and then it just plain makes false statements as fact (like there are contradictory flood stories referenced in the Bible), and then to top it off, says some patronizing nonsense like "don't worry, just because the Bible isn't historically accurate, it's still authoritative, because we want it to be..." The more we discover archaeologically, the more we find the Bible has been dead on in it's account of, well, everything written from a historical standpoint that we have evidence of.
Jon,
do look up the "Epic of Gligamesh". It is the most famous of these flood stories that the author refers to.
The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooded regularly. It is entirely plausible that one of these floods was particularly large and flooded the whole (known) world – meaning the land between and around the Tigris and Euphates Rivers. It would have been quite devastating at the time and stuck in oral traditions.
Ultimately these stories were written down – like the Epic of Gilgamesh in 1800 BCE. Traditionally Abraham comes from Ur, where these stories were well known. It seems likely that peoples who came from Ur brought their stories with them.
Ultimately when the Pentateuch is composed (much later, let's say 5th or 6th century BCE), the stories have evolved and are integrated into the Hebrew tradition.
Thank you for trying to enter into a genuine discussion... if we could do more of that despite our differing beliefs and opinions, I bet we could learn a lot from each other instead of just trying to prove we're right. I'll take a look at what you wrote here and try and get back to you soon...
Compare these:
Gen 7:2 vs Gen 6:19-20, 7:8, 7:16
Gen 7:4, 7:12, 8:6 vs Gen 7:24, 8:3
Gen 7:7, 10 vs Gen 7:11-13
Gen 7:4, 7:12 vs Gen 7:11, 8:2
Gen 8:8-12 vs Gen 8:7
"The more we discover archaeologically, the more we find the Bible has been dead on in it's account of, well, everything written from a historical standpoint that we have evidence of."
In fact that is the opposite of the truth – some people and some places have been verified but you'd expect the stories to pertain to local geography.
Compare these:
Gen 7:2 vs Gen 6:19-20, 7:8, 7:16
in Gen 7:2, it is specifically mentioned that he was to bring two of each "to keep alive" (chayah used in Hebrew here), in the verses mentioning 7 pairs of clean, the rest were for food for the other animals, or sacrifice.
Gen 7:4, 7:12, 8:6 vs Gen 7:24, 8:3
Very clear in the language here, it rained for 40 days and nights, and "after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated". Where do you see a contradiction?
Gen 7:7, 10 vs Gen 7:11-13
I actually don't see where you see any contradiction here at all... are you referring to God waiting seven days to start the flood, and where it says that the fountains of the deep and the heavens opened all on the same day? If so, it's straight forward, God waited seven days like He promised, and then everything started pouring down and coming from underneath on the same day.
Gen 7:4, 7:12 vs Gen 7:11, 8:2
Again, I don't even see the beginning of a contradiction here... what version of the Bible are you referencing?
Gen 8:8-12 vs Gen 8:7
I'm not sure how Noah releasing a raven in verse 7 and then releasing a dove in verse 8 is considered a contradiction, where are you going with this?
I said: "The more we discover archaeologically, the more we find the Bible has been dead on in it's account of, well, everything written from a historical standpoint that we have evidence of."
So you said: "In fact that is the opposite of the truth – some people and some places have been verified but you'd expect the stories to pertain to local geography."
I don't even know how to respond to this last comment, how it's the opposite of the truth would be interesting to hear. I would be happy to engage you more if you are looking for honest answers, but throwing out a bunch of Scriptures that are supposed to conflict that you probably pulled off someone else's "The Bible contradicts itself" post without bothering to actually read them first is a waste of my time. If you are genuinely looking for answers let me know and I'll be happy to reconnect with you.
There are two flood stories in Genesis just as there are two creation myths, the one written by the Priestly Source in Genesis 1 and the older creation myth written by the Yahwist in Genesis 2. The Genesis creation myths were joined by a redactor who didn't try to make the order of creation mesh between the myths.
Like the flood mythology, the creation mythology in Genesis appears to borrow from Sumerian mythology as well. The American mythologist Joseph Campbell believed that the talking snake in the story of Eden was lifted directly from either the Sumerian God Enki, God of Water and Wisdom, or his son Ningizzida both of whom were identified as Serpent Gods.
Enki was possessed of the food and water of life as well as the tablets of wisdom. Ningizzida was Lord of the Tree of Truth.
The rib woman Eve may be linked to the Sumerian goddess Ninti who healed a pain in Enki's rib. In addition to being the "lady of the rib" Ninti was a Sumerian goddess of life. Enki had a pain in his rib because he ate certain plants in the idyllic garden in which he lived and was cursed for doing so. Enki's eating of the plants and the curse uttered against him for his misdeed recall the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam and Eve and the curses pronounced against each of them for that action.
The early Jews reworked the Sumerian myths to fit within their own mythology. In the case of the flood story, material from the Yahwist and Priestly Source has been intermixed without the clear separation one finds for the creation myths. The number of animals brought on-board the ark by Noah differs in the two tales. Noah collected seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals in the Yahwist version of the flood myth in Genesis Chapter 7 verse 2, but one pair of each kind of animal in the Priestly Source version in Genesis chapter 6 verse 19. Those creatures would have had to survive on the ark for not much more than forty days and forty nights in the Yahwist's version in Genesis 8:6 or for about a year in the Priestly Source version in Genesis 8:5 followed by Genesis 6:13-14.
There are several other discrepancies between the two versions which are addressed in Who Wrote the Bible, which was written by Richard Elliott Friedman, a biblical scholar and the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia. You can also find other sources by Biblical scholars that address the authorship of various sections of the Pentateuch. The CNN article is merely relating what is a fairly widely held view among biblical scholars today about the combination of two discrepant stories within the flood myth in Genesis.
When the early Jews incorporated the Sumerian flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh where the god Enki warns Utnapishtim of a coming flood to be sent to wipe out mankind by the god Enlil who is angry at mankind, Enki and Enlil become the wrathful god Yahweh. Utnapishtim was advised to build an ark for himself and his family and to take animals on-board. At the end of the flood he sends out a dove, swallow, and then a raven. When he disembarks he sacrifices to the gods. The early Jews turned Utnapishtim and his family into Noah and his family, but retained many elements of the earlier myth with Noah also sending out birds at the end of the flood and sacrificing to his god, who also likes the smell of burning flesh, i.e., holocausts, as other gods of the time, when he disembarks.
"The more we discover archaeologically, the more we find the Bible has been dead on in it's account of, well, everything written from a historical standpoint that we have evidence of."
Well, despite hundreds of years of searching, there is that minor absence of any physical evidence or Egyptian accounts of the exodus . . .
Yes, you'd think they'd have commented on all those plagues and their first born dropping dead.
And just after I paid you a compliment about trying to actually have a fruitful conversation...
Somebody forced you to come to a belief blog??? If not, then don't whine when the article you're commenting on is about stuff that is pertinent to belief.
I really don't even know what you mean here. This was sent to me by a friend, but it's a personal frustration that even in an "opinion" or "belief" column, the words "in my opinion" or "so I believe" are never used... when you are lifted up as an expert and publish an article like this one, you have an absolute inherent responsibility to distinguish these two from facts. This kind of "tolerance" for people to say whatever they like as if it were true, even when they know it's not, is precisely why we live in the most informed and simultaneously most confused generation in history...
My apologies for the vu lgarity, but sometimes you just gotta call b$ll s*%t.
I can deal with the boring stup idity of statements like " it's crazy to think the ark could hold that many animals". I asked the same question 30 years ago in high school when reading Genesis 6. I quickly crunched the numbers ( it isn't Calc III), determined the cubic feet of the boat and then looked up in my World Book Encyclopedia the number of animals on the planet who "breathed through their nostrils" and could not survive outside the ark. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the ark narrative is feasible. To tell you the truth, I have no problem with many of those here who want to continue throwing out this red herring.
But not this;
" but your death cult is a problem its the number one cause of your current Eco cri sis. Your faith teaches that
the earth was put here for man to use and we do not have to worry of the consequences because were
going to heaven anyway, that one of many ways your killing the planet" (sic)
Sam, let me broaden your horizons and expand your knowledge base of some chrisitians.
Were I not a Christian, I would probably have joined some rad ic al environmental group like Earth First or would have been caught rap e l ling down the side of a nu clear power plant with the boys at G r eenpeace. I have been an ardent environmentalist long before it was hip and en vogue. There are few topics of discussion that will get my da nd er up more than the human degra da tion of the environment. My environmental ideology is not about recycling or driving a Prius, all band aids to appease are societal sense of environmental responsibility. It's too late for band aids, what is needed is surgery, namely POPULATION CONTROL. It is the single most important issue facing the planet today. God calls me, a Christian, to take care of the 'garden"
So you see, I would suggest you know your opp o n ent a little better before making yourself look fo ol ish.
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the ark narrative is feasible." How did all the fresh water fish survive? You counted all the possible wild animals and domesticated animals of Noahs time back in High School and decided you came up with the right numbers and that those numbers are "feasible" to have lived on a floating ark for a month and a half?
You are right, a rocket scientist might not be able show how wrong you are, but just about any well educated zoologist could easily show you how impossible both your claim and your argument are.
Pfft. The Ark had fresh water pools for those fish to survive.
Did it have casinos and hotels as well? LOL at that guy above saying that he can easily calculate the size of the ark. 😆 How about this. Calculate the amount of water it would take to flood the entire earth, and how much rain it would REALLY take, and how many plants would die. Most vegetation would be wiped off the face of the earth, so what exactly do all these animals come home to? What do they eat while there are only 2 of each? None of it makes the least bit of sense, plus there is NO GEOLOGICAL evidence that a flood that massive EVER took place.
Bones McCoy
I assume you noticed that the flood story addresses the truth concerning the kingdom of God from the day of its first oral tradition to the day Moses took note and Jesus specifically referred to it. Words themselves are not Divine but their ability to transmit truth from beginning to end spanning generations is Divine. If the flood story presented a different meaning over its period in different cultures I would not give it any more weight than the Epic of Gilgamesh.
A great deal of effort has come about to disprove the flood yet the Epic remains just a poem. Something very different is at play when the topic of Noah and the flood is mentioned. That something has power and presence from the beginning to this very moment whereas the Epic and others like it are simply the works of man. You should ask yourself why you observe that power and presence and why it is so. That would be putting your science to good work.
Bones
Admittedly, I was one of those freaky math types in high school, but if you had even an inkling of basic mathematics, it would be a simple exercise.
Perhaps you came to school on the smaller yellow bus? ( I know, that was cruel).
OK Devin. You figured it out.
So riddle us this, batman. How did, say, the Australian Aborigines survive? I mean their forefathers were around before during and after the flood based on whatever dating system you want to use. And they wouldn't have known to build an ark since they aren't christian. So…how did they make it?
I'm guessing your "THE JOKER"?
Eight people came off the ark. Good chance ( 100%) that they were all the same race. How do we have such a diversity of race and people groups today? it's not that difficult.
And don't forget: I'm Batman
Where is Robin stuck in a tar pit ?
I gave Robin the old heave ho. That crazy Boy Wonder was a little too limp in the wrist for me, and you know us Christians, we're nothing but a bunch of bi g oted, ha te filled, ci vil rights denying h o m o p hobes.
devin,
Speaking of looking FOOLISH, estimates of the number of species of land animals run from 1,500,000 to 6,500,000. Multiply that by 2 (or 7 from the Bible, take your choice), then calculate the space required for a YEAR's supply of food for MILLIONS of animals and it shows that your number cruncher was FAULTY.
Try again and do better math so you won't look FOOLISH.
You are so thick-headed its unbelievable! Did the flood get to the Amazonian forest too? Fresh water/salt water/volcanic lava all mixed together and the sting ray survived?
" You are so thick headed" Why thank you, my wife would concur and has been the beneficiary of what you mentioned.
Now just go and push the numbers yourself instead of regurgitating some erroneous information you gathered along the way.
But you said it was SO EASY to crunch the numbers and you have already done. Please post them here. I want to see your calculations instead of over simplifications and lies.
Bones
450(l)x75(w)x45(h) roughly 1.5 million cubic ft.
Dammit Bones, you make this too easy.
Satyr, it'd be astonishingly simple to prove your concept as soundly as devin has proven his idea. Just say that you crunched the numbers in high school and proved that the ark story in the bible is ludicrous. Evidently, that's all you need to do.
I'm not going to apologize for the total bullshit that I find your post, devin, and it you figured it out, you'd post exactly what your rocket scientist conclusions are.
While it is reprehensible for what some people say here, nothing negates the fact that your first paragraph was complete and utter BS.
Believe as you please, but don't try to make a silk purse out of a sow 'a ear. That, like your first paragraph , is impossible.
No apologies needed. The first paragraph was not even the gist of my post. Funny how people gravitate towards it though. I've been through the flood argumentation so many times over the years I just really don't care what you think or don't think about it. ( "you" in general, not you specifically).
I don't know why anybody here would waste time arguing with a person who feels that their faulty assumptions in highschool somehow invalidate billions of hard facts that would prove the earlier assumption to be absolutely bat sh!t insane.
Enjoy your delusion, devin.
Capt
In your case, it would be "you" specifically.
Did you also calculate how long it would take for two koala bears from Australia, two moose from North America, two sloths from South America, etc. to make the trip to Noah's ark? And how long it would take them to get back? Did the koalas carry their food with them or did Noah have it shipped to him by FedEx? And what about the fish that can only exist in a narrow salinity range? Did Noah build fish tanks for them? And what about all of the insects, worms, etc? What did Noah feed his menagerie while they were on-board the ark? What did the lions and leopards eat on the ark? What did they eat after they disembarked. A couple of pigs perhaps? With all the vegetation drowned, what would herbivores eat when they disembarked? And if there were only two of each prey species, they would be consumed quickly by predators after disembarkation or the predators would starve.
Your right, it isn't rocket science; just a little common sense should reveal that the Noachian flood myth is just a retelling of an older Babylonian/Sumerian flood myth, which doesn't become more plausible when fitted into Jewish mythology and placed in the Bible.
Given the discussion, keep in mind that God works out miracles> and does His work supernaturally as He chooses while keeping it within the human level and perspective. That's why He instructed Moses to lift up his staff and stretch out his hand toward the Red Sea to part it and close it back up. Did Moses part and close the Red Sea himself? Of course not! God did. Likewise, God instructed Noah to build an ark, gather a male & female couple of each animal kind—even that could have been symbolic, and board the ark with his family and all the animals to avoid the flood. Now, God must have worked it all out supernaturally but wanted Noah to pitch in—do his part. God always wanted man to pitch in—do his part, and then, He does the actual work while keeping it within the human level and perspective, so we can believe.
The ark was a TARDIS and Noah was a time lord.
This hypothesis neatly explains how all the animals fit in the ark and had individual habitats and how Noah was 600 years old when the whole thing began.
My answer is no more or less falsifiable than "goddidit".
The only possible way to reconcile the story of Noah is for it to be a space ship, and the animals weren't actually physical animals they were DNA samples. If the earth was about to get hit by a comet, and aliens came to warn people and help, it makes way more sense. With genetic cloning technology they could preserve almost any species on earth and with the right resources they could save most of it. Obviously the global flood thing is false and impossible, but that's the ONLY way you can resolve that story without denying basic biology.
Obviously a story that is told word of mouth for many generations would change over the years. If you've ever played telephone, it proves exactly that. A single sentence can be completely changed (and almost always does), after being told to 20 people in succession. Now imagine an entire story being told to hundreds if not thousands of people over thousands of years.
What happened to all the water?
God Who created everything is able to bring in and take out whatever, and with or without leaving a trace; He Sovereignly chooses, wills and commands.
Really Vic Really ?
So, magic water then?
Go get yourself a 5 gallon bucket and stick a 2 liter soda bottle in it. Fill the bucket up to the rim with water. Now take the 2 liter soda bottle out of the bucket. Where did all the water go that previously filled to the rim? Do you know about mountains?
Where did the water come from? Where did the water go?
It CERTAINLY wasn't all from the earth, so where was the source?
It's in the bottle?
Note that a gallon is 3.78 liters, with 2 liters removed from five gallons, there's less than a 11% change in the amount of water in the bucket.
So again if the great flood covered all the land (including the mountains) where did it go? It was already everywhere so there was nowhere for it to flow to.
Congrats! You understand displacement. Keep working at it, one day you might understand the basics of biology.
Let's approximate the earth to a sphere (it's not) with a radius of 6,371 km.
Mount Everest is almost 9km above sea level (8.848km).
The volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi r^3.
Calculating a difference of volumes, the extra water required to innundate Mt. Everest, as a first order of approximation, is 4.6 billion km^3.
The USGS estimates that there are about 1.386 billion km^3 on earth today.
You would need 3x as much water as exists on earth to flood the summit of Mt. Everest.
Where did the extra 4.6B km^3 of water go?
1.386 billion km^3 of water, that is.
Where Did L4H go and that thread ?
Harvard Medical School. "Neanderthals' genetic legacy: Humans inherited variants affecting disease risk, infertility, skin and hair characteristics." ScienceDaily. 29 January 2014.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129134956.htm.
The Ark was really a space ship used to escape a dying planet.
"And now the Angels are making a wooden structure, and when the Angels come out from that task, I will put my hand on it, and keep it safe. And a change shall take place, so that the dry ground may not remain empty. " Book of Noah 67.2
What is more reliable, the bible or the "book of noah"?
Equally unreliable.
And where in that text you find evidence of a Spaceship?
The Bible has lots of alien encounters recorded. Moses meets an alien at the top of the mountain (that is why he was so red, radiation sickness).
The wise men followed a "moving star" (ufo).
Moses also falls sick and dies before entering the promised land with the people believing God struck him down... radiation poisoning?
Come sail away…come sail away…come sail away with meeeee.
QUESTION:
Does this religion respect Jesus’ direction and allow divorce and remarriage—but only on the grounds of immorality?
this no word for divorce,in my faith marriage is forever even after death, last i check Christians divorce more then pagans and seriously if you religions doesn't love Jesus your not good; if you religions doesn't love Mórrígan your not good
Does this religion encourage its members to participate in warfare?
war is a natural part of the human experience it is no more immoral then sex.
plus nothing makes you feel more alive then fighting, fucking and feasting. and we should all celebrating life
in addition war is a great way to reduce the human population and if humans become over populated we take the whole earth down with us.
1.Good religion promotes high moral standards:
morality is subjective and differs from person to person people to people, also is a construct of humans nature is A moral and nature is the right way because its nature like that. we should respect the diversity of ideas, because life cannot exist with out diversity
2.Good religion promotes brotherly love
is the foundation of all religions, but love is defined differently
3.Good religion promotes respect for Gods word the bible
so people have to love your god and your bible to be a "Good" religion,... are you listening to your self.
are you atheist or christian?
Sam is neither one.
Polythist
i believe in the existence of all gods and follow in order of importance
1 Amaterasu
2 Morrigan
3 Athena
4 Lilith
5 Gaia
animistic
i believe all life is divine and that even trees and other animals are equal to man and have a soul
ancestral
i live to honer my ancestors; the Morrigan happens to be my ancestor as well
You practice Hinduism, of Buddhism?
for further detail on the deities i follow just fucking google it, the internet has done more to spread paganism then any other tool
i actually call my self a Druidic-Shintoist
but JW the word hindu and the word pagan is interchangeable; but i am definitely not a Buddhist i do not worship Demi-Gods, avatars, or prophets. so no Jesus or Buddah buddah was a wise man and Jesus was kinda a narcissistic lair that lead people away from the sacredness of nature.
Sam- your either a troll...of a very angry man.
actually I'm feeling vary melancholic right now, and there is no emotion in my post, I'm just board and enjoying some conversation while i wait for Adventure Time to come on. oh and last i checked I'm not a man.
JW Sam is a very interesting poster. Sam is just defining some different religions. The majority of the religions noted are not acknowledged or given holidays.
lol...
Sam if you are still reading. I'm sending friendly greetings to you. Earlier in here you were playing Valkyrie profile. My favorite game. I just got mine back after a year in the attic. Found it. Yay! And I hope you don't feel melancholy for too long the weather has been odd lately.
Cheers.
As Christians, we believe that we are saved by the Grace of God through Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Our Salvation is a "Gift," an "unmerited Favor." God imputes righteousness unto us on the basis of Faith/Belief in Him and not on the basis of the works of the Law. No one is justified by the works of the Law.
John 1:16,17
"16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ."
John 3:16,17
"16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."
Romans 6:23
"23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:1,2
"8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."
Romans 10:4
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Galatians 2:16
"16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."
Galatians 4:4,5
"4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
Ephesians 1:7
"7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace"
Ephesians 2:8,9
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Ephesians 2:14-16
"14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."
Colossians 2:14
"14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
All Scripture Is From:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
http://www.biblegateway.com/
So a murderer can keep on killing and still be forgotten...Can someone keep on cheating on his wife and still keep on receiving grace?
Romans 5:15 " Shall we commit a sin because we are not under law but under undeserved kindness (grace)? Never may that happen! "
Why the bible on 1 Corinthinas 6:9-11 give a list of practices if people continue to practice, will not inherit Gods Kingdom?
We need God's "Natural Law" to maintain order in this life but that's not what saves us in the nest life. A man is accountable before his fellow man for wrongdoing in this life realm, that's part of the "Natural Law." Plus, no one in his right mind would commit such heinous crimes. Apart from the Law, the teachings of the Bible are for good morals; in the meantime, we are saved ONLY by the Grace of God through Faith ALONE in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Oh..regarding the list you are referring to, Apostle Paul clearly shows pagan practices that were done for and in 'idolatry & disbelief' and then concludes that the redeemed in Christ no more does that. That does not necessarily mean that the believer does not sin, rather, it means that the believer does not practice anything in 'idolatry & disbelief.'
"That does not necessarily mean that the believer does not sin, rather, it means that the believer does not practice anything in 'idolatry & disbelief.'
1 Cor 5:11-13 "But now I am writing you to stop keeping company*+ with anyone called a brother who is se.xually immoral* or a greedy person+ or an idolater or a reviler* or a drunkard+ or an extortioner,+ not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside?+ “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”+
A believer can fall in to hard sin. If not ehy would Paul write this advise?
We must not forget these words from Paul:
Heb 10:26,27- "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth,+ there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left,+ 27 but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition."
Jesus ransom sacrifice has the ability to forgive any type of sin, though, the ransom sacrifice is not an excuse to keep on practicing gross sin... One you see God as someone real and as a friend, you will, how the scripture says in Acts, "turn around "from the way you used to live.
Anyone else have the Post button missing? It's invisible but still there to click on.
Yes.
Yes, that is happening to me.
Yes. I did have the page numbers missing, too, but they came back.
It has been gone for almost a week now.
Yes, for a few days now.
Maybe it is a metaphor for God.
except there was objective evidence of it and when you look there is objective evidence of it.
This universe and life in it, His mighty handiwork, are a splendid testimony to the existence of God.
Thanks. I said some disparaging things about Catholics the other day and thought they zapped me. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League can be as vicious as Scientologists you know.
I know it is there. Even if I can't see it with my own eyes.
LOL...indeed! With trembling hands and blind faith I clicked in the space where the Post button should be and...behold...my comment was submitted. Glory! Praise baby Jesus!
All it takes is a little bit of faith to post on this here blog. Let go and just do it.
I'm an apostbuttonist, so it is exactly what I expected.
Just have faith. It's still there.
A photo of a smaller version of how this ark would have looked:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/noahs-ark-round/283335/
Yes, a coracle made of woven rope with wooden ribs, perhaps 80m across, covered in pitch.
It's absurd. If built would break apart.
There are many religions, yet the bible only talks about one road inyo salvation...who to identify the true one, consider the following?
1.Good religion promotes high moral standards:
When asked whether there was ever any grounds for divorce, Jesus said: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”—Matthew 19:9, New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible.
QUESTION:
Does this religion respect Jesus’ direction and allow divorce and remarriage—but only on the grounds of immorality?
Which religion has a reputation for upholding the Bible’s high moral standards?
2.Good religion promotes brotherly love
Jesus commanded his disciples: “I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”—Matthew 5:44, NCE.
When soldiers came to arrest Jesus, the apostle Peter drew a weapon to defend him. However, Jesus said: “Put your sword back in its place. All who use swords will be killed with swords.”—Matthew 26:52, NCV.
The apostle John wrote: “You can tell God’s children from the devil’s children, because those who belong to the devil refuse to do right or to love each other. From the beginning you were told that we must love each other. Don’t be like Cain, who belonged to the devil and murdered his own brother.”—1 John 3:10-12, Contemporary English Version.
QUESTION:
Does this religion encourage its members to participate in warfare?
Which religion teaches its members to overcome political, racial, and economic barriers that divide people?
3.Good religion promotes respect for Gods word the bible
“You have revoked God’s word because of your tradition. Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. They worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commands of men.’”—Matthew 15:6-9, Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Many of the world’s religions, Christian and non-Christian alike, claim to respect the Bible. Nevertheless, how many religions do you know of that discard human traditions when these clash with clear teachings found in God’s Word?
Which religion encourages people to study the Scriptures to see if what they are learning is really true?
"Which religion encourages people to study the Scriptures to see if what they are learning is really true"
My old friend studied (and 'preached'/witnessed) with you guys for over 25 years. He studied his way right OUT of religion because he learned that your "Scriptures" are not true.
OTOH- that can happen to anyone...even the opposite way. Many before becoming JWs where from all religious, an national backgrounds, including atheists.
p.s. and I don't mean from age 0-25 either, he joined as an older teenager.
OTOH- Your friend decided that way, its his decision, it a shame though... But at the end,He goes his way, an we continue in our way!
JW,
"Jesus said: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”—Matthew 19:9"
This is one of the greatest examples of how so many Christians can be HYPOCRITES. They IGNORE this while raising millions of dollars to deny equal rights to gays.
This is
Observer- Another thing is that Jesus never encouraged his true followers to participate in politics.
About gays, even though the bible condemns the practice, its not the right of the true Christians to be involved in political affairs, like blocking others rights!
Unfortunately many called "christian" religions pass over the boundaries of the teaching of Christ, and end up hurting the society/
JW,
The concept of the Golden Rule is one that would help all sides if followed, but unfortunately relatively few do.
Observer,
thats why on the topic of good or bad religion Jesus said:
“A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18, Contemporary English Version)
JW,
"“A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.”
That's a snappy little adage, all right; but it's simply not true in reality (of trees, anyway).
OTOH- If its rotten from the root the three has no hope...unless modern technology can fix that..
High moral values do not require religious mumbo jumbo to be created, exist or propogate.
A half truth does not make the whole Truth. Actually a half truth is a complete LIE that's just common sense. Therefore yours is NOT common sense but an absurd. 😉