It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
The Noah tale could very well be based on a true story, just heavily exaggerated.
I pretty much agree with everything you said, except for the fact that it was never the entire world flooded at once.
The glacial period ended. There were tons of isolated floods, and I do think there was a cosmic event 7000-8000 years ago, leading to even more flooding events. It just wasn't the entire world covered by water to the extent the story describes.
Only poorly translated. The story says Noah who was a king in the line of Adam had his land ruined by floods, but that he was warned somehow and built a huge ship and he would take a few of every kind of animal he kept in his land as well as his family and sail off when the rains and the waves would come. The story doesn't say much more. It is modern Christian theology and doctrination that insists on translating eretz into earth and not land here. And the error probably originated with the Septuagint. Same with the references to the Red Sea in Exodus in the Septuagint.
So they are right because, what? They are Jews? That's like saying I am right about anything Norse, because I am Norwegian. As far as I'm concerned the JPS translation is poor compared to translations like the ESV or any modern critical study bible. That said they are all wrong of course. Jewish or not. In the story of Noah, haEretz should be translated the Land or at least include a note about how though they look and sound similar Eretz and Earth are not related words and do not have the same lexical meaning.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Seede
Excellent response, and I see you received he typical comeback of "that isn't a valid site". They can't refute that the dates are frequently wrong, but they will pretend there isn't an issue.
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Seede
Excellent response, and I see you received he typical comeback of "that isn't a valid site". They can't refute that the dates are frequently wrong, but they will pretend there isn't an issue.
You could not be more wrong in that assertion. It's not that we can't refute the dates are frequently wrong, it's that you are incapable of demonstrating that they are. This is because you don't actually understand the science behind it and therefore are forced to rely on sources that feed into your own confirmation biases because they count on that. They know you aren't going to do your own research because they are telling you what you want to hear. The end result is they print up something that sounds pretty darned sciency and you buy it hook line and sinker because you have no idea of whether or not it's good science or even remotely accurate. You see Dr. so and so's name associated with it, it looks like they've got legit credentials and wet your lips because...god. It's got nothing to do with the site per se, it's got everything to do with the shoddy and deceptive work involved. It's a joke and people like you are the punch line and don't even know it.
originally posted by: randyvs
Never see much enthusiasm from you do we. Instead you use division.
Pretty clever.
originally posted by: blacktie
its been pretty obvious from satellite images from google-maps that global flooding might have happened in the past maybe not just the one time written about in the Bible