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.

 

Seems like Flood of Junk

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I know this has been done already but this is my first thread and I want to throw this out there.

There are many issues with the story of Noah and the flood.
You also have to keep in mind that the Biblically the world is 6000yrs old
If you are a Christian and rebuke this fact and admit that you allow modern day scientific studies to change the way you read the bible then you have to let science in throughout the book(for instance when in Joshua it says God stopped the sun from revolving the earth... do you believe that)the geneology of the Bible is how they have come up with this figure

1. How did Noah get all of the animals from all the different continents to his boat. If you say that Pangea existed a mere 4-5 thousand years ago, then how did the animals get back home after the flood had ripped the continents apart.

2. How did he fit all the animals on a boat 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft high. Considering there were hundreds of thousands possibly millions of species of animals.

3. How did he keep them from trampling or eating each other on the ship. And if there were only 2 of each kind when they got off the ship what about the carnivorous pedators(tigers, lions, etc) there must have been tons of species that went extinct cause the tigers got hungry.

4. In the bible it says the boat was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high... well most scholars both religous and historical claim a cubit was about 1.5 foot. Well it also says the waters covered the top of every mountain. But it says it only rose 15 cubits which according to the 1.5 ft theory that would be 22.5 ft. Now we all now 22.5 ft of water wouldn't cover the tallest mountain. So if you say that 15 cubits must equal the tallest mountain(Everest @30,000ft) would mean that the boat would have been 60,000ft high an astonishing 9 million ft long. But..... 22.5 ft of water might have covered all that was around Noah.

5. The North and South American indians as well as the Aborigine tribe in Australia have been residing in their respective homes for 15000 years. But for the Bible beater's sake lets say that they were spawned from Noah(4000 yrs ago). Then, since they were already in America when it was discoved and had advanced civilizations like the mayans with pyramids and such, they would have had to find there way here by boat way before anyone else. Which would have suggested they were intelligent. Then they would have had their journey written down, journaled, or at least folklored about... which they have plenty of folklore.

I have plenty of more material to discredit this ridiculous book but this should be enough for any logical minded person. If you want more just ask... The bible is just a bunch of fables... Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and he lived much after Noah which means Genesis was not written for thousand of years after the events took place.. just stories handed down from generation to generation... I thought those were called myths, fables, folklore .... free your mind people


[edited title -nygdan]

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I absolutely agree that the biblical story of noah is a fable as are most of the other stories but one thing puzzles me.


The bible is just a bunch of fables... Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and he lived much after Noah which means Genesis was not written for thousand of years after the events took place.. just stories handed down from generation to generation... I thought those were called myths, fables, folklore .... free your mind people

You discredit the story of noah but in the same breath state that moses wrote these books after the events happened. Why does there even have to be a moses, an abraham, a jacob, an exodus etc? There is no evidence for any of this but there is evidence to suggest that these books and others were compiled much later than the supposed moses, probably after the return to jerusalem from babylon.
Just a thought.


G



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Not everything in the good book , the Bible, is "straight up-front", alot of the things are metaphors.

For example, my Mum and I were discussing the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. We were discussing what we both thought they were, rather than just, "Oh, they were four guys who rode horses during the apocalypse." Perhaps they are metaphors for humanity's wrong-doings?

So, if Noah's Arc is a metaphor for something else, other than a large boat, what else could it have been?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
The bible is just a bunch of fables... Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and he lived much after Noah which means Genesis was not written for thousand of years after the events took place.. just stories handed down from generation to generation... I thought those were called myths, fables, folklore .... free your mind people


Don't be so quick to discredit myth, fable or folklore. The lessons taught through those media have survived for millennia while writing or books are relatively new concepts to humanity. For instance, how old is the story of the Tortoise and the Hare and what lesson does it have for people today? You bring up many points in your post, but I'd like to tackle the idea of the flood legend being a "story handed down from generation to generation"...imho, it's much more than that.

Before you discredit the Bible and Genesis, consider that those stories of the flood have come down from other civilizations and much later incorporated into the Old Testament. We're not just talking about Noah here...there's also the Epic of Gilgamesh. It seems to me that it would be foolhardy for us to dismiss and ignore anything which has been in the collective memories of humanity for at least 4,000 years.

Could it be that what we are being told is an account, through myth and legend, of the rising sea levels and climactic changes brought about by the end of an ice age over 10,000 years ago?

Here's some interesting flood legends...


mcclungmuseum.utk.edu...

NIPPUR TABLET

...a flood will sweep over the cult centers;
To destroy the seed of mankind...
Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods.
By the word commanded by An and Enlil...

All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful, attacked as one,
At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult centers.

After, for seven days and seven nights,
The flood had swept over the land,
And the huge boat had been tossed about by the windstorms on the great waters,
Utu came forth, who sheds light on heaven and earth,
Ziusudra opened a window on the huge boat,
The hero Utu brought his rays into the giant boat.

- Sumerian clay tablet, late 17th century BC



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE STORY OF ATRAHASIS

Enki made his voice heard...
Dismantle the house, build a boat
Reject possessions, and save living things.
The boat that you build...
Make upper and lower decks.
The tackle must be very strong,
The bitumen strong, to give it strength
I shall make rain fall on you here.

The Flood roared like a bull,
Like a wild ass screaming the winds
The darkness was total, there was no sun...
For seven days and seven nights
The torrent, storm and flood came on..

- Akkadian, ca. 1640 BC



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EPIC OF GILGAMESH

For six days and seven nights
The wind blew, flood and tempest overwhelmed the land;
When the seventh day arrived the tempest, flood and onslaught
Which had struggled like a woman in labor, blew themselves out.
The sea became calm, the imhullu-wind grew quiet, the flood held back.
I looked at the weather; silence reigned,
For all mankind had returned to clay...

I opened a porthole and light fell upon my cheeks..
Areas of land were emerging everywhere
The boat had come to rest on Mount Nimush.

- Assyrian version, 7th century BC



------------------------------------------------------------


Welcome to ATS, freeyourmind.

Don't forget to check the search functions for related material already available in ATS on this and related subjects.



[edit on 20-7-2006 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Hey first I would like to say thanks for replying to the thread. It is nice to know that intelligent people would add to my thoughts.

To shihulud: I personally don't believe that there was a moses, abraham, etc but I was just trying to make some points using the bible as a believer sees it. So if Moses was "real" he would have had to write some of the stories like Adam and Eve thousands of years afterward.

xeroxed88: If you open the book up competely for metaphors then throw it in the garbage... cause anyone can make up whatever they want. Also how do you decipher which stories are metaphors.

masqua: As to some other myths being simular with the flood I agree. That just means that the Bible isn't the origin... think of the simularities between sampson and Hercules (ex:both were chained to pillars and pulled them down). Maybe some of these events did happen but the bibles religous perspective of them is misconstrued along with most other myths.





[edit on 20-7-2006 by freeyourmind]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
RTB's position on the long day of Joshua and the sun going backward in the sky with Isaiah and Hezekiah? (Real Player audio file)

Some say it's poetic language; some say it was a meteorlogical event; some say a miracle beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.


the geneology of the Bible is how they have come up with this figure

Yes... it was Bishop James Ussher who made the calculation (see: Bishop Ussher Dates the World: 4004 BC ) Why do you suppose the majority of the early Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days? [Source]

I guess my point is: Why do you believe the young Earth interpretation of Scripture is the correct one? Because you find it easier to refute and mock or because of your expertise in ancient language (oral and written histories) and cultures.

I'm not a young Earther, nor do I believe the Flood was global, so I'll skip the Ark questions and give a link to the local flood interpretation. If you're really interested in what YEers say wrt your questions most, if not all, of the YEC sites (eg, ICR and AIG for sure) cover them. Or, as Masqua pointed out, just use the ATS search feature as I believe these issues have already been discussed.

The Genesis Flood
Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
(note: It says Why the Bible says and not why science says)




I have plenty of more material to discredit this ridiculous book but this should be enough for any logical minded person.


You may be able to discredit an interpretation (many have tried so good luck with that) but I'd suggest you show some respect for other people's beliefs. You think you've got the logic market corned do ya? Many of us believe that the Bible, or to quote your juvenile hyperbole "ridiculous book," is the word of God. Regardless of your personal beliefs a little class and respect for others is in order here. How old are you?


If you want more just ask... The bible is just a bunch of fables... Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and he lived much after Noah which means Genesis was not written for thousand of years after the events took place.. just stories handed down from generation to generation... I thought those were called myths, fables, folklore .... free your mind people


Are you saying that Moses wrote them; compiled them; or what exactly? You think there was no (local or not) flood? What about the Black Sea flood, right time and place, no? Are you suggesting that these stories were not passed down, instead Moses just made them up? I noticed you later agreed with a poster that Moses never even existed... is this just a 'I'll agree with anyone so long as they are also Bible bashing?' Did you already know the YEC answers to your questions and were just baiting them so you could pounce on them with your "logic" and bunch of fables hypothesis? Just Curious.

" If you want more just ask... "

Do you have anything new, ie hasn't been debated for the last few hundred/thousand years? If it's the same old, same old, then I'll pass. The majority of your post doesn't reflect my understanding of Scipture (or even the VAST majority of believers past and present.)

Good luck though.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I guess when you suggest the "not ordinary solar days" you are saying that perhaps the 2000 yrs before the flood was actually a longer period of time. If it were longer then that would mean that people like Methusalah lived a whole lot longer than 969 yrs(thousands or millions of years old). Or maybe shorter which wouldn't change the issues but make them worse.

I apoligize for being so abrasive about my views... I guess the reason I am so bitter is because I used to be a very devout christian. Now that I have come to question and in my mind see so many of the things in the bible as false or just myths ripped off of other myths, it makes me want to tear it apart. I feel cheated and like a fool. But I should have been more considerate.

I read the local flood material. It is interesting. I am not saying there was not sometype of flood. Just not a global flood. But the biblical argument for a local flood is based a lot on translation problems and perception of the words. Like "When "all" does not mean "all" and "The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography" or The "whole earth" often refers to the people not geography" among others in that source. Fact is if you read the bible it says the tallest mountains were covered. If you want to read a bunch of other stuff into it then it is all subjective and based soley on personal faith in our own perception of the Bible. I just can't exept that we can make of it what we want. It weakens the whole bible.

As for Moses: The Bible scholars say he "Wrote" the first five books. I believe that he(if he existed) compiled myths some true, some untrue, and some possibly made up.

I have more ideas and questions about the bible like
Moses supposedly led the Jews out of Eygpt. They crossed the sea and into the desert where they stayed for 40yrs. This desert about the size of the state of Alabama has been being excavated by many different counties for over a century. Considering there were around 250 thousand jews and 40 yrs in a small desert, some of them would have died, probably almost half. But no bones at all from a hundred thousand people, clay dishes, no nothing. They have not found a shred of evidence to support any people being there.


The fact remains you cannot stop the SUN to stop the daylight. The Earth rotates making day and night. God would have had to stop the Earth from turning which would have been planetary destruction but oh wait God can do anything. That explains it.

All this in the spirit of friendly debate!!!
Free Your Mind

[edit on 20-7-2006 by freeyourmind]

[edit on 21-7-2006 by freeyourmind]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Where did Cain find his wife. It does say that adam has sons and Daughters but not until after the story of Cain and Abel, and seth. After eve birthed Cain she says " i have gotten a man from the lord" Then Adam "Knows" her again and births Abel. After that Cain kills Abel and is cast out to the land of Nod where he finds his wife... no mention of other kids yet. Then it says that Adam knew Eve again and bore Seth then after that it says he lived Eight hundred MORE years and begat sons and daughters. So where did Cains wife come from?

In the new testament the story of the resurrection. The gospels were not written until around 80-90ad and 1 corinthians was written by paul around 50-60AD. The reason they had to wait so long was because of the Jewish revolt shortly after Jesus. The Romans crushed them and then razed Jeruselum to the ground. They left a tower or two and it is said that if those towers were not standing that passers by would have never known there was a city there. So most likely the tomb was destroyed along with any other evidence. In Pauls Corinthians he mentions that after the ressurection Jesus appeared to peter then the 12 then to 500 at once then James then the Apostles. Why would he appear to 500 before his own brother James. And why doesn't the Gospels which were written later(some 50-60yrs after christ's death) not mention the appearance to the 500 at once. That is a pretty big and important event. seems fishy

got to go to bed more later
free your mind



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xeroxed88
Not everything in the good book , the Bible, is "straight up-front", alot of the things are metaphors.

For example, my Mum and I were discussing the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. We were discussing what we both thought they were, rather than just, "Oh, they were four guys who rode horses during the apocalypse." Perhaps they are metaphors for humanity's wrong-doings?

So, if Noah's Arc is a metaphor for something else, other than a large boat, what else could it have been?



sorry to go off topic but I have to answer this.

When revlations was written the view of the world was still flat in a rectangular shape.

4 sides 4 horsmen from the "corners of the earth" all the earth is takin in

Book of Hewbrews. Written in 70AD the same year the romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Early christians fear the romans may put up against them so thus comes hebrews with all of its antisemitisim.

(haha and Im a catholic seminarian! Truth be told!)

History and times, people and places.

Thomas A' Kempis said in the most famous christain book "The imatation of Christ"




The Fifth Chapter
READING THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.

We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.

Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by.

If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned. Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose.



- imitation of christ 1418AD Thomas A' Kempis.

Your a fool to take anything at face value.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I guess when you suggest the "not ordinary solar days" you are saying that perhaps the 2000 yrs before the flood was actually a longer period of time.


No. The "not ordinary solar days" is talking about the days of creation (1 thru 6) in Genesis. If you're not familiar with the day-age interpretation (ie, old Earth) of Genesis I would recommend reading these two pages:

Godandscience: Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days


Wiki: Day-Age Creationism





I apoligize for being so abrasive about my views... I guess the reason I am so bitter is because I used to be a very devout christian. Now that I have come to question and in my mind see so many of the things in the bible as false or just myths ripped off of other myths, it makes me want to tear it apart. I should have been more considerate.


I appreciate that
I can understand where you're coming from but it's important to understand that an old Earth and a local flood (sans kangroos and all that hullabaloo) is a valid interpretation of Scripture(s). It's the original belief of the writers ('compilers' if you prefer) imho and a young Earth, a global flood that covered every mountain, a T-rex who doesn't eat meat (ie, no death before the fall) and lives next door to man, etc, etc, etc are perversions that only serve to drive people away from Scipture (that's exactly what happened with you right?)

Anywho... The first link I gave you re: 'long days' goes into more detail on the views of some of the early church fathers. The idea that prior to science (geology mostly) believers in Scripture thought the universe was young, and all contained there-in was created in six literal days, is not accurate. Some (many at times) did, but heck, people still argue that today. It's like that flat Earth nonsense that comes along every now and then... pet peeve I guess.




I read the local flood material. It is interesting. I am not saying there was not sometype of flood. Just not a global flood. But the biblical argument for a local flood is based a lot on translation problems and perception of the words. Like "When "all" does not mean "all" and "The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography" among others in that source. Fact is if you read the bible it says the tallest mountains were covered. If you want to read a bunch of other stuff into it then it is all subjective and based soley on personal faith in our own perception of the Bible. I just can't exept that we can make of it what we want. It weakens the whole bible.


Do you think, assuming the Bible is indeed His word, that the extent of the flood (what animals, mechanisms etc...) is the point? Or is there another lesson? Does Genesis teach us how we were created or why? What about the flood - how or why? They're all good questions... I struggle with them myself. This stuff will get your thread moved to BTS (theology/spirituality) pretty quick though. So I'll move on. WRT the flood that Noah and Gilgamesh are based on I'd recommend reading:

www.biblemysteries.com... This is the deluge believed to be the source for Noah and Gilgamesh. Very interesting read... this is relatively new so more tests (etc.) are being done. The location and time could also mean that Noah is the original account and not Gilgamesh:

In considering which came first, and thanks to the much later estimates of the Deluge by Biblical scholars, the account in Gilgamesh had been given the greatest credence, and scholars for some time have believed that the story of Noah had been borrowed in no small part from Sumerian legends. Now however, obscure references from other prehistoric cultures as well as its proximity to the hills surrounding Mount Ararat tended to favor the Black Sea Basin and therefore Noah's Flood as the story of greatest antiquity.


[... continued next post]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

As for Moses: The Bible scholars say he "Wrote" the first five books.


Sure either wrote or compiled Moses usually gets the credit... but you say he didn't exist so that's why I brought it up.

If you have an interest in this (I do also) you'll like this page:

www.biblemysteries.com...

It was a time of great archaeological discoveries in Mesopotamia where literally thousands and thousands of clay tablets had been unearthed inscribed in cuneiform, a method of writing which involved impressing a wedge shaped stylus on wet clay in various forms comprising a series of syllables of nearly 600 different combinations.
What fascinated Wiseman was the way in which some of the baked clay tablets were structured. In many, after the gist of the text, there appeared what has been termed a "colophon" which could take various forms. Details of who wrote that particular tablet, when it was written, for what purpose, whether it had been copied from an earlier tablet, on the orders of which king and various other additional snippets of information could be added at the end of each writing. In addition, should the tablet be a part of a series, linking information between that tablet and the others in the series were often added at the beginning and end of a tablet. Thus the title of a series was usually taken from the first word of the first tablet and then repeated at the end of each subsequent tablet. An additional safeguard was sometimes employed whereby the first few words of the second tablet were repeated as the last few words of a previous tablet.
[... snip ...]
Wiseman proposed that Moses himself compiled Genesis as tradition had maintained, not from divine revelation but rather from tablets compiled by earlier ancestors. Thus the people mentioned above had compiled their own histories of their own times from their own knowledge and inscribed them on tablets. Moses had just edited them by essentially adding them together.
To show how remarkable a theory it is, I have placed in the library a reading of Genesis highlighting the colophons in such a way as hopefully not only to make the theory clear but to show how it throws remarkable clarity on the Genesis account. I urge you to read all of Genesis keeping the colophons in mind as you do. I begin each history with the colophon in pink transferred from the bottom of the relevant tablet which is highlighted in blue.


Also check out the wiki page on Ahura Mazda (Zoroaster's God) and from jewishencycolpedia.com see: Resemblances Between Zoroastrianism and Judaism.





I have more ideas and questions about the bible like
Moses supposedly led the Jews out of Eygpt. They crossed the sea and into the desert where they stayed for 40yrs. This desert about the size of the state of Alabama has been being excavated by many different counties for over a century. Considering there were around 250 thousand jews and 40 yrs in a small desert, some of them would have died, probably almost half. But no bones at all from a hundred thousand people, clay dishes, no nothing. They have not found a shred of evidence to support any people being there.


Those would be the typical ones. Usually part of the top ten at any atheism website. Exodus theories are a dime a dozen... not enough evidence (non-Biblical) to say for sure.





The fact remains you cannot stop the SUN to stop the daylight. The Earth rotates making day and night. God would have had to stop the Earth from turning which would have been planetary destruction but oh wait God can do anything. That explains it.


Well you're right and wrong. Yes God can do anything. No that doesn't (God did it) explain anything... *I feel I should be sitting cross-legged in front of some incense doing my Yoda voice*.... we don't have all the answers. Faith is not - do you believe- in this that or the other theory/idea/interpretation. Faith is not do you believe God exists, that easy; obvious imo. Faith is (imho) - Do you trust him? That's faith imho... it's also not O&C material and I don't want to hi-jack your topic.

We used to have a few young earthers around here but I haven't noticed any as of late. *shrug*



All this in the spirit of friendly debate!!!
Free Your Mind

[edit on 20-7-2006 by freeyourmind]


I'm not much for debate but I don't mind sharing ideas and information.


Regards



[edit on 21-7-2006 by Rren]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I do appreciate an intelligent person as yourself. Your views are alot different then some of those of the people in my area. I live in the Bible belt south( Florida). Where most people are Baptist, Methodist, etc. These people believe contrary to the points that I have made. You on the other hand and seems like many others believe in a way that is a little more inteligent although after exploring it I still cant accept. But thanks for you comments. Did you have any on my last two. Cain and the gospels

[edit on 21-7-2006 by freeyourmind]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Alsough if 1-6 = 5billion yrs... and you maintain that man still only have existed for the last 6000 then your logic still falters. I am going to work am im late so cant explain that now but will later



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Ok after a long hard day at work I am back.

If you believe that the first seven days equals the majority of the Earths history some 5-6 billion years that is fine, I have also thought of this exact theory to explain many things myself. But after the first 7 days it picks up with the geneology of people. Approx 6000 yrs, 2000 before the flood. Now the young earth or literal interpretation of the Bible is a scientifically naive one but pure(since it is literal there are no quaffs about what the Bible actually means). This view although can be deflated easily with basic science(like the world isn't flat and the Earth is not the center of the universe). So seeing these scientific breakthroughs many have changed to a more loose interpretation to provide a solution to some of the scientific boo boos. So if you allow these science thoughts toaffect your perception of the bible then how about fossils. Dinos have almost proven the world is older than 6000, which is covered by your first 7 days theory. Now figure in the fact that they have found many many human skeletons dating back 10s of thousand of yrs ago. So you could say that possibly before the flood they counted years differently. Say 2000 years was more like 60000 yrs. Well then figure how old Methuselah would be... nearly 30000 yrs old. That doesn't add up to me.

I liked the Yoda reference. I am a big Star Wars fan.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hey did you fall asleep on that one. You still haven't answer half my questions. I guess it all boils down to faith. If you have faith in something poked full of questions that you can only fill with benign answers like... God can do anything or we are not supposed to know all the answers, among a million other cop out answers, then you are the lucky one. (what a run-on) You have a book to lay it all out for you. The origin, history, how to exist in the present, and the future. I on the other hand have to wade through a load of other theories, ideals, belief systems and figure it out on my own. I envy you. Where is my mustard seed, I've lost it. Now left with an empty soul, drained by a MY truth. So now as I discard my old spirituality(christianity) and try to inflate my soul with some other belief(of science, religion or personal revelation). It is I and no God who can make my life as I see it. I have set my mind free... free from fear. Fear of eternal damnation, the people around me condeming me, being without the structure and support of religion, not knowing the answers, and so many other fears that bind mankind to the need for a belief.

Here is an analogy I come up with that I like:
Mankind was like a small child in a strange bedroom at night. Now when the child gets scared(questioning origins etc) and he gets out of bed to try to turn on the light(logically explain the questions) he bumps into things and stubbs his toe. So he now jumps back in bed and pulls the covers(religion/"beliefs) over his head as a saftey measure. Now we all know that light switch(the real answer) is there, but religion has pulled the wool over our eyes and given us a false security.

H.L. Mencken "Penetrating so many secrets we cease to believe in the unknowable. But nevertheless there it sits, calmly licking its chops."



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Hey did you fall asleep on that one. You still haven't answer half my questions. I guess it all boils down to faith. If you have faith in something poked full of questions that you can only fill with benign answers like... God can do anything or we are not supposed to know all the answers, among a million other cop out answers, then you are the lucky one. (what a run-on)


So you thought I'd settle these issues for you? I thought I explained what (in my opinion) Faith is. I don't have "faith" in a paticular theory (Exodus, Noah, joshua etc...) and if you're interested there's plenty to read online from believers who don't advocate any sort of Biblical creationism and yet still hold that the Bible is the word of God. The 'moral of the story' type stuff (which is the point/message imo) doesn't usually get discussed in this forum and I have no (note-worthy) science to put forth outside of what I posted. Besides I get the impression nothing I could say or argue would satisfy you. These are not - 'these insights just hit me' - personal revelations (unless the typical list is coincidental) and I know how these topics [fail to] go usually... no offense.

Comments like: "If you have faith in something poked full of questions that you can only fill with benign answers like..." and; this was just priceless "You have a book to lay it all out for you. The origin, history, how to exist in the present, and the future. I on the other hand have to wade through a load of other theories, ideals, belief systems and figure it out on my own. I envy you." I'm sure humility keeps you from just calling me an idiot out-right. You've obviously got this all figured out... must've been whilst wading through all those theories eh.




Enjoy your stay though.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Just to be fair I'll respond to your previous post (didn't notice it originally and assumed today's rant was the latest... been a very rough time around here lately) FWIW here's more on Joshua here and also take a look at reasons.org's FAQ page. Your ideas about creationism (and Christianity) seem like cobbled together versions of different interpretations which makes it hard to find a place to start.


If you believe that the first seven days equals the majority of the Earths history some 5-6 billion years that is fine, I have also thought of this exact theory to explain many things myself.


The first 'day' was approximatley 14.6 billion years ago (Big Bang), Earth is about 4.5byo IIRC. This page and image may help you understand the OEC [Old Earth Creationism] postion. Creation Timeline Table




But after the first 7 days it picks up with the geneology of people. Approx 6000 yrs, 2000 before the flood. Now the young earth or literal interpretation of the Bible is a scientifically naive one but pure(since it is literal there are no quaffs about what the Bible actually means).


(emphasis mine) Really? "No quaffs" not a one? Man now I envy you.


This view although can be deflated easily with basic science(like the world isn't flat and the Earth is not the center of the universe).


Technically there is no "center" to the universe. I've also heard it argued that any one place can be the 'center' (something about inflation/math but I'd have to look it up) including Earth (I'm NOT arguing that mind you but I'm not sure where you're going exactly.)

Did you mean the Copernican model for the solar system maybe? You feel this debate was based on Scripture? I'm aware, albeit superfically, with the ideas of Ptolemy, Aristotle et al but could you direct me to the Biblical reference? Also who thought the world was flat, and when, wrt creationism and/or ancient beliefs? If you're correct about these being Biblically based theories you should be able to set me straight in no time.


So seeing these scientific breakthroughs many have changed to a more loose interpretation to provide a solution to some of the scientific boo boos. So if you allow these science thoughts toaffect your perception of the bible then how about fossils. Dinos have almost proven the world is older than 6000, which is covered by your first 7 days theory. Now figure in the fact that they have found many many human skeletons dating back 10s of thousand of yrs ago. So you could say that possibly before the flood they counted years differently. Say 2000 years was more like 60000 yrs. Well then figure how old Methuselah would be... nearly 30000 yrs old. That doesn't add up to me.


Why do you direct this comment at me? I was clear that I'm not a YECist and also that, I believe those interpretations to be perversions of Scripture, did I not? I linked to a detailed description of the OEC position/timeline and history (prior to the additional link I provided in this post[that makes three now.]) I have no doubt that the Earth is more than 6kyo and very few believers (past and present) ever believed that (gave you info on that already also.) Are you reading this stuff? To busy wading through all those theories and setting those silly creationists straight? Why not hide in your Bible like the rest of us... you have read it I assume?


I liked the Yoda reference. I am a big Star Wars fan.


Well we can agree on something then.


Hopefully some others will contribute to your thread now. I don't see you and I making any progress but many ATSers share your view[s].

Have a good one,
Regards and God bless.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Rren]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
By no quaffs I meant that someone who reads the bible literally just has the basic straight foward translation and doesn't read a bunch of modern science into the bible. Therefore there are no quaffs... what it says is what it means. Doesn't mean that I don't have quaffs with what it says.

I didn't say anything about there being a center of the universe. I simply stated that when the bible was written and being translated that they believed that the earth was the center of the earth(which was referenced in the bible when God made the Sun stop revolving the earth). These kind of scientific miscues are stretched throughout the book.

Which brings me to the next point you missed. I do things in a round about way. I directed that comment to you cause I was talking about OEC theory. If the first seven DAYS in the bible represent 14 billion years(which is bringing modern science into the bible) and brings us up to the dawn of man, with Adam and Eve, then you also have to consider the overwhelming evidence that supports mankind as we know it starting to develop intellegence like 60000 years ago(adam and eve?). Now if you count the biblical yrs up there are 6000. One answer for this is that maybe the 2000 yrs before the flood was not like our yrs now. But if you think that then also think about methuselah and how old would that make him(30000yrs).

I never thought that you COULD settle my issues and questions with the bible. I just like to pose my questions here where people anticipate it. If I brought this line of thought to a local, regular christian... well they don't respond to well. Also I didn't try to suggest that you are an idiot if i thought that I would have said so. You do have the intelligence to defend your beliefs. I just wanted maybe to display not to you but to anyone that there are questions with no known answers. So some of it does require faith.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeyourmind
By no quaffs I meant that someone who reads the bible literally just has the basic straight foward translation and doesn't read a bunch of modern science into the bible. Therefore there are no quaffs... what it says is what it means. Doesn't mean that I don't have quaffs with what it says.


I think you underestimate the issues. We don't seem to really disagree her though, depending on what you consider a "straight forward translation" see below:



I didn't say anything about there being a center of the universe. I simply stated that when the bible was written and being translated that they believed that the earth was the center of the earth


You provided zero sources wrt when the Bible "was written and being translated" you provided zero sources wrt who "they" are exactly and what "they" believed about the structure of the solar system/universe. You did not correlate any of these [non-existant sources] with what the Bible says about the structure of the solar system/Universe. In short you said nothing besides 'how was the Sun made to stand still?' Did I miss other evidence[s] you've provided to help elucidate your position?




Which brings me to the next point you missed. I do things in a round about way. I directed that comment to you cause I was talking about OEC theory. If the first seven DAYS in the bible represent 14 billion years(which is bringing modern science into the bible) and brings us up to the dawn of man, with Adam and Eve, then you also have to consider the overwhelming evidence that supports mankind as we know it starting to develop intellegence like 60000 years ago(adam and eve?). Now if you count the biblical yrs up there are 6000. One answer for this is that maybe the 2000 yrs before the flood was not like our yrs now. But if you think that then also think about methuselah and how old would that make him(30000yrs).


You're still using Usher's [et al] figures for when Adam and Eve lived and calling that OEC. Is that correct? How many ways can I say the same thing? Have you read any of the OEC links?



Also I didn't try to suggest that you are an idiot if i thought that I would have said so.


Read what you wrote again.



You do have the intelligence to defend your beliefs. I just wanted maybe to display not to you but to anyone that there are questions with no known answers. So some of it does require faith.


I think we disagree on what Faith (capitalized) really means. I have no desire to argue semantics and I believed I've explained Faith the best way I know how [ie, Do I trust Him?] and it has nothing to do with floods, physics, evolution etc. etc. IOW I don't have Faith in creationism. It's just using science to help better understand Scripture where applicable... *shrug*

Have a good one.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Don't make me "actually" call you an idiot. I have only been stating very basic vastly accepted facts. You shouldn't need any "sources" to know what I am talking about. When the bible was written and translated, all of humanity had the perspective of a flat earth and the earth being the center of the known universe(which is where the Joshua reference comes in). Now obviously this means that the book was written in a time and by people of scientific naivety. So as I can see it the OEC theory is derived from intergrating modern science into a scientifically naive book. Also you believe that the first seven days represents 14 billion years, but that is all a scientific THEORY. The big bang and Evolution and all of the scientific theories on our origins are just that... theories. So you can back an already shaky book with a bunch of theories and base your beliefs and life on that, but I will just accept that I don't know or have the answer and probably never will.







 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join