Noah's ark ? How ?

Look, I'm just stating my take on an old story. If you read the text around the Paleg verse, it becomes quite clear that he was talking about the planet's surface, and not the peoples of earth. I understand how the text can be mis-interpreted, and I also understand that I'm as potentially fallible as anyone else, but I don't believe this to be the case. As for a worldwide flood, why is it that all of the great societies of earth have the same story? And before you say that they stole it from each other, why don't we date the different texts, and see how close they really are.

However, despite all this, it again comes back to the same point that I made once before. It's all a matter of faith in what one believes. I consider it just like when a replay is called in NFL football, if there isn't overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the current call/belief stands. I have to see huge amounts of proof that refute what everyone has taken to be truth for the past 4000+ years.

I still ask you though, what makes us think that there were as many or more animals in Noah's day as there are now? And if the story of Noah is to be believed, God brought the animals to Noah so he could load them onto the ark. Again, just my few cents.

I do surmise though that you are an athiest, but that shouldn't change your approach to evidence, nor does it really matter (was just making an observation). If nothing else, it should strengthen it. To an athiest, evidence is everything, as without it or science, one has nothing.

Yes, in a way evidence is everything. And as it stand's there is literally no evidence of a world wide flood. Assuming god brought all the wittle animals to noah ... Did he then create new animals where they currently and only exist? Why isn't this written in the flood story? You also have to take into consideration, that no, not all culture's have a flood myth. Those living near and around water may have a flood myth of sort's dating from prehistory, but not all are the same. Some don't even tell it in the same was as the biblical flood.

To the people living near and around water, flood's were a very real threat to society. And stories told can and do get blown out of proportion over time, especially oral stories and written coppied stories.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is not unusual that such peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods to explain and cope with an integral part of their lives. To these ancient cultures, a flood that covered their known world would likely be considered local flooding by First World standards instead of literally the entire planet. Scholars point out that most cultures living in areas where flooding was less likely to occur did not have flood myths of their own. These observations, coupled with the human tendency to make stories more dramatic than events originally warranted, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying cataclysmatic floods evolved.

Originally posted by TheBorg
Look, I'm just stating my take on an old story. If you read the text around the Paleg verse, it becomes quite clear that he was talking about the planet's surface, and not the peoples of earth. I understand how the text can be mis-interpreted, and I also understand that I'm as potentially fallible as anyone else, but I don't believe this to be the case. As for a worldwide flood, why is it that all of the great societies of earth have the same story? And before you say that they stole it from each other, why don't we date the different texts, and see how close they really are.

However, despite all this, it again comes back to the same point that I made once before. It's all a matter of faith in what one believes. I consider it just like when a replay is called in NFL football, if there isn't overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the current call/belief stands. I have to see huge amounts of proof that refute what everyone has taken to be truth for the past 4000+ years.

I still ask you though, what makes us think that there were as many or more animals in Noah's day as there are now? And if the story of Noah is to be believed, God brought the animals to Noah so he could load them onto the ark. Again, just my few cents.

I do surmise though that you are an athiest, but that shouldn't change your approach to evidence, nor does it really matter (was just making an observation). If nothing else, it should strengthen it. To an athiest, evidence is everything, as without it or science, one has nothing.

How come I have to be an athiest? If it's because I like facts then there are a whole lot of biblical archaeologists (not one so far that I have found that doesn't have faith and are still trying to prove to this day that the bible is the historical truth) have some serious expalining to do. Everything I stated previously is not something I made up, it's FACT!

In my own journey to find some reason to believe in God or a higher power, I have studied extremely hard to find that there is no historical basis nor any archaeological or geological proof of a world wide flood. And with that, I noted only things that I found that support what I wrote.

In reference to your comment about dating the flood myths, it would be nearly impossible to do that. Most cultures didn't write them down, they were passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation. Ever play the game telephone? After one person tells another person and so on, the statement that you began with becomes something else entirely but it still preserves some sort of version of the original. The same process had to have been used at that time...Noah didn't write the story as it was happening and it's known that the bible was written close to 1,000 years after it all happened. In the case of Noah's flood which has been written that it took place around 3000 B.C., that's over 2,000 years before anyone even thought to write down the story. You really think that someone at that time knew exactly what had happened? I seriously doubt it. Do a little research and see when they started building boats of that magnitude, that could actually last that long, in what would be something so catastrophic that anything that wasn't on that boat didn't survive.

What everyone took as literal truth for the past 4000+ years? Christianity really didn't even start becoming a religion until Constantine's time (306-337 A.D.) (In my previous post I said Constantinople which was Constantine's kingdom, sorry for the confusion).

As for the animal comment, I didn't make it so you can ask someone else what they think

Originally posted by Produkt
And as it stand's there is literally no evidence of a world wide flood.

Simply not true. Do a search on the evidence for a global flood and you will find plenty to read about it. Here's one

www.answersingenesis.org...

A more accurate way to say it is. The evidence for a global flood is not accepted by some.

C'mon! Do better guy. Don't hand me some creationist garbage. These the same people who think man and dino's existed together and the earth is only 6,000 years old?

These people are the most idiotic total moron's who have no clue in wth they're talking about. They want to deny the truth, let them. You want to deny the truth, kudos to you. Next time, don't shove a creationist BS link down my throat.

Originally posted by Produkt
C'mon! Do better guy. Don't hand me some creationist garbage. These the same people who think man and dino's existed together and the earth is only 6,000 years old?

These people are the most idiotic total moron's who have no clue in wth they're talking about. They want to deny the truth, let them. You want to deny the truth, kudos to you. Next time, don't shove a creationist BS link down my throat.

And you are rejecting this information because.............exactly, it comes from the other side. The side that you don't agree with. That's a surprise. There won't have to be a next time, you need to look for the rest of the info yourself. You only get one freebie.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by dbrandt]

Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters).

I would like to know what they were doing with so many tennis courts.

Originally posted by dbrandt
And you are rejecting this information because.............exactly, it comes from the other side. The side that you don't agree with. That's a surprise. There won't have to be a next time, you need to look for the rest of the info yourself. You only get one freebie.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by dbrandt]

Hey, how about you go ask those devil worshipping geologist's and climatalogist's what they think. Those evil bastard's. Damn satanist's huh?

hey no wonder they collected two of every animal, they had the Noah Ark Open.

Just to mention, Jesus said that his return would be like in the days of Noah.

This is because no one believed in the flood that swept the people away, and so will the attitudes of the last chapter of mankind be with total rejection of the warning signs.

But does it not make sense that if man was made perfect his genes would run better during that time of being the first man. It’s like having a computer and it slows down because it picks up Internet viruses it slows it down. The world’s environment was one climate and the atmosphere was richer with oxygen, as a computer slows down if not enough air-cools it. Scientists know this different atmospheric environment it helps prove and shed light on the Bible stories and conditions then.

Archaeologists help support the finds the places of the cities in the Bible. If you say that the Bible does not want to admit to science and it covers up the truth then the same is for every discovery they make to support the Bible. You only hear on the news what is contrary to creation but never for it. Things are found all the time but never reported and things are covered up or destroyed. Even Arabs destroy any evidence they find and close permission to outsiders to find the missing puzzles of the Bible. A lot of evidence is in the Middle East of old Israel but because Israel has shrunk in size its impossible to investigate the history of the Bible.

The Bible talks about a race of giants called the Nephelim and other types as well that even today evidence of giant tombs drawings large stones that have been moved all point to this. But the news does not report such things for the Bible as the news is pro science and politically correctness, when have they said they discovered ancient Bible cities and places that were once thought to be myth? Only in digital TV paid for documentaries and websites this kind of news is reported because less people see them. It’s all reported when a certain peculiar stars in space is found but only to support science. Now the whole issue of Jesus the Bible has been thrown out of common knowledge to leave people ignorant of it all. If God is here to warn us of future events then the majority with power could avoid the situation. But if the future turns up to be like in the days of Noah then it will happen and the knowledge of the warning signs are lost and man will be sitting ducks with feet tied down with bricks unable to escape. This is the exact environment needed for events of the last days of man to happen so the patterns of old will go full circle once more. Other patterns include mans continuation of the persecution of the Jews. Look at how many empires government systems and dictators have come and gone. Yet today it’s the same story and tomorrow will be the same result.

But I'm not bothered because there is nothing I can do to stop an eventuality even if it happens today. Nor can world leaders, but the ones who do not believe have a knack of fulfilling destiny.



[edit on 14-2-2006 by The time lord]

I want everyone to take a good look at this quote.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

What's this saying? It say's.

"So, if we just went by the word of the bible with all the mistranslation's and our own interpretation's on what it mean's and we disregard all scientifice evidence that goes against our faith ..."

Yea ... It's all science's fault! Those god damn sadistic evil bastards! Damn them to an eternal hell while we love thy neighbor and do unto other's as we'd have them do unto us! Ah crap ... scratch that love thy thing and that do unto whatever's ... can't get much done doing that nonsense!

[edit on 14-2-2006 by Produkt]

We have to ask how was the universe was made from nothing if nothing is an absolute. God is beyond this 3D universe in an environment one that is eternity that can create something out of it. It’s either nothing or something. And I’m choosing a something as my witness of principle.

We should not even be here from nothing not even a lifeless rock. Its two principles 1 to exist or 0 never existed. If something did exist before the universe in a number of infinite possibilities and laws of probability then it’s possible for they’re to be a God too. And even if the element of creation was God it does not mean it has to go back to who created God if he is almighty. It means it supersedes this question its like a fractal its never ending every shape repeats it self which allows GOD to know everything as the nature of the Holy Spirit does. But this is my theory and all equations that say its possible we came from nothing all add to the fact you need something to start it off with. There could be other dimensions too, so what? It’s also a number when you say ‘other’ it takes more than one second of time to say it. It’s possible to be out side time? Yes our understanding of it means beyond our reality time frame. Which only leads to think maybe what is out there which is beyond our time frame environment has a never-ending possibility of existence, which cannot be measured to an end or beginning and hence God can exist by correcting all other outcomes by using them as a personal mathematical tool to recreate them, which in a way he is by that nature of mind. Limitless.

But make me an atheist if you will I’m trying too but I fail my self, billions believe in God also but some do not go this far in thought.


[edit on 14-2-2006 by The time lord]

[edit on 14-2-2006 by The time lord]

[edit on 14-2-2006 by The time lord]

Originally posted by Produkt
What's this saying? It say's.

"So, if we just went by the word of the bible with all the mistranslation's and our own interpretation's on what it mean's and we disregard all scientifice evidence that goes against our faith ..."

Yea ... It's all science's fault! Those god damn sadistic evil bastards! Damn them to an eternal hell while we love thy neighbor and do unto other's as we'd have them do unto us! Ah crap ... scratch that love thy thing and that do unto whatever's ... can't get much done doing that nonsense!

Why would the bible deal with those 'millions and billions of years' if humans weren't alive that long?
The bible isn't a scientific book. If you're looking for science in it, you're going to have a hard time. I'm pretty sure the main focus was on human beings.

Originally posted by nichole
How come I have to be an athiest? If it's because I like facts then there are a whole lot of biblical archaeologists (not one so far that I have found that doesn't have faith and are still trying to prove to this day that the bible is the historical truth) have some serious expalining to do. Everything I stated previously is not something I made up, it's FACT!

Well, to be totally honest, the "FACTS" that you stated were sketchy at best. Let's examine them one at a time to see what I mean.

" There is NO evidence whatsoever of any flood, even at the the end of the last ice age, that covered the entire Earth. "

How then do you explain the presence of sandstone over the surface of the entire earth? Only one thing creates sandstone, and that's sand. Sand comes from bodies of water, plus you must also accept the 'fact' that sedimentary rock like clay, is everywhere over the surface. There's just too much geological and fossil evidence to deny the existence of a catastrophic flood.

"The Epic of Gilgamesh should be looked as proof that, like most religions, Christianity borrowed from older sources in order to make the religion "seem" older when in fact the bible was written around 1,000 years after the fact."

I tend to agree with this statement as well as the one that followed that about how Christianity reinvented holidays, as that's true. However, it should also be noted that if something is true, why wouldn't someone want to perpetuate that truth for all generations to remember? Just because Gilgamesh MAY have written the story first, doesn't make it any less true for the rest of the world's civilizations, now does it?

I find it a little disheartening that people don't see the facts when they stare them in the face. Maybe I'm the blind one, I don't know. I can accept it if some of the stories told in the Bible are nothing but stories, but to suggest that the whole Bible is composed of nothing tangible is kind of insulting to every Christian out there, which is why I surmised that you were an athiest. If I surmised in err, I apologize.

In my own journey to find some reason to believe in God or a higher power, I have studied extremely hard to find that there is no historical basis nor any archaeological or geological proof of a world wide flood. And with that, I noted only things that I found that support what I wrote.

And yet you overlook the ever-mounting evidence to the contrary?? Not very scientific there, if you ask me.

In reference to your comment about dating the flood myths, it would be nearly impossible to do that. Most cultures didn't write them down, they were passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation. ... [edited for brevity] ... Noah didn't write the story as it was happening and it's known that the bible was written close to 1,000 years after it all happened. In the case of Noah's flood which has been written that it took place around 3000 B.C., that's over 2,000 years before anyone even thought to write down the story. You really think that someone at that time knew exactly what had happened? I seriously doubt it. Do a little research and see when they started building boats of that magnitude, that could actually last that long, in what would be something so catastrophic that anything that wasn't on that boat didn't survive.

At this very moment, we're uncovering evidence to suggest that the Vikings were sailing the seas hundreds of years before anyone else thought it possible. Does this mean that It couldn't have been done sooner? No of course not. We cannot just think that ancient peoples were stupid, because they weren't. They were as resourceful, if not moreso than we are. I find it interesting that Vikings could make ships up to 150 feet long that could sail the harsh waters of the North Atlantic (some of the most dangerous waters on earth), about 400 years before Columbus went on his maiden voyage.

What everyone took as literal truth for the past 4000+ years? Christianity really didn't even start becoming a religion until Constantine's time (306-337 A.D.) (In my previous post I said Constantinople which was Constantine's kingdom, sorry for the confusion).

As for the animal comment, I didn't make it so you can ask someone else what they think

The literal truth of the Bible. People have taken what it said as literal for far too long. I don't believe everything in the Bible is 100% accurate, as I agree that many hands have meddled with it, and they have messed it up. Words have been changed, and thoughts skewed to indoctrinate the masses. However, if the masses just read it and let God interpret for them, then they'll get a much fuller experience from it. Plus, they won't be able to be held in contempt of an angry God whom they know nothing about, aside from what the preacher tells them. As for the animal comment there, I wasn't going to ask anyone else about that, as I find it to be a moot point.

This has been a very enlightening conversation for me, and I'd love to keep it going, but I dunno what more we can say. I believe one thing, and you another. To each their own I guess. That's what makes us all unique, after all.

Keep studying,

TheBorg

How then do you explain the presence of sandstone over the surface of the entire earth? Only one thing creates sandstone, and that's sand. Sand comes from bodies of water, plus you must also accept the 'fact' that sedimentary rock like clay, is everywhere over the surface. There's just too much geological and fossil evidence to deny the existence of a catastrophic flood.

Huh? Sounding a bit unedumacated. Let's take a peek at our good friend the wikipedia. Silica is one of earth's most common material's my unedumacated friend.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed mainly of sand-size mineral or rock grains. Most sandstone is comprised of quartz and/or feldspar because these are the most common minerals in earth's crust.

Ah yes ... the moon once had water too. Did you know the moon is made up mostly of silica? Nah ... bet you didn't. The earth is only 6,000 years old too.

I tend to agree with this statement as well as the one that followed that about how Christianity reinvented holidays, as that's true. However, it should also be noted that if something is true, why wouldn't someone want to perpetuate that truth for all generations to remember? Just because Gilgamesh MAY have written the story first, doesn't make it any less true for the rest of the world's civilizations, now does it?

Eh? In that case, the christian divine god is really an anunaki from the planet nibiru. And the human race was created as a slave labor force. Or perhap's, as some indian creation myth's tell it, we all came from a series of underground cave's instead. There's a huge variety of creation myth's way older then the monotheistic version. Perhap's we should revert back to those instead? And if those were true or held truth, why did christianity and other monotheism set out to destroy those truth's in support for their lies?

I find it a little disheartening that people don't see the facts when they stare them in the face. Maybe I'm the blind one, I don't know. I can accept it if some of the stories told in the Bible are nothing but stories, but to suggest that the whole Bible is composed of nothing tangible is kind of insulting to every Christian out there, which is why I surmised that you were an athiest. If I surmised in err, I apologize.

Yes, I agree. It's very disheartening how people won't educate themselve's and look at the fact's and evidence's before them. This is how these creation myth's keep being perpeptuated for so long. Another great insult to christian's is that jesus wasn't the son of god, meaning their whole belief that he was the son of god is born of a lie because some moron idiot didn't want to be stoned to death.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Produkt]

www.geocities.com...
????interesting

You can find anything if you look hard enough. It's just an odd shaped geological formation. That's all. There are also other 'boat' shaped depression's just like that in the area.



astro.wsu.edu...

Here you can see a face in a mountain!

Growth rings in wood are caused by rain, so in a pre flood environment, with no rain, the trees would have no growth rings. And this is exactly what the American team found! In fact, if the material did have growth rings, it could not have been Noah's Ark.

What amount of sheer idiocy is this? And who are the idiot's that believe these moron's?

Here's how it really is folk's.

vathena.arc.nasa.gov...

In a tree the cambium, the cells that will become wood or bark, grows in a light layer during late spring/early summer changing to a dark layer in later summer/early fall. This is the pattern in Alaska. The light layer is early wood, formed when the tree is growing rapidly. The dark layer is late wood and is grown more slowly. The growth occurs at the outside of the trunk, just under the bark, so that a light and dark ring pair represents one year.

Not even the dummy creationist's buy this story either.

www.answersingenesis.org...

A Christian who was researching these claims writes (in a document forming part of Ark Search’s ‘written evidence’) that when he was shown this ‘petrified laminated wood’ sample, Wyatt told him that he had had it analysed by Galbraith Laboratories and the tests indicated that it was silicate replacement (that is, the wood had been replaced by a silicon compound). This cannot be truthful, since the laboratory report, also in Ark Search’s possession, shows that silicon was not even analysed for by Galbraith! No future compliance by Wyatt to have the sample sectioned is feasible without the safeguard of eye-witnesses who are familiar with this so-called ‘laminated’ ‘pecky cypress’.

www.geocities.com...

stil very interesting

[edit on 15-2-2006 by BaCk2thereallife]

Yes, it is a very interesting geological formation one of many found in that area that look similar to it.

psst. It's not the ark though. Those damn jews used the wood long ago to build the first banks for the NWO.

No offense intended to the jewish folk
I know you guy's aren't in on the NWO ... it's really the reptilian's putting out a bad rap for ya guy's

Produkt,

"How then do you explain the presence of sandstone over the surface of the entire earth? Only one thing creates sandstone, and that's sand. Sand comes from bodies of water, plus you must also accept the 'fact' that sedimentary rock like clay, is everywhere over the surface. There's just too much geological and fossil evidence to deny the existence of a catastrophic flood.

Huh? Sounding a bit unedumacated. Let's take a peek at our good friend the wikipedia. Silica is one of earth's most common material's my unedumacated friend.
en.wikipedia.org...

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed mainly of sand-size mineral or rock grains. Most sandstone is comprised of quartz and/or feldspar because these are the most common minerals in earth's crust."



Is it me, or does this say EXACTLY what I just said?? I said sandstone covered the entire planet, which meant in some form or other. I should have clarified, I'm sorry. You mention that sandstone "is comprised of quartz and/or feldspar", which are the most common minerals on earth. I find it funny that you think it pertinant to correct me by re-enforcing my statement. You really didn't help your argument there. I thank you for doing that research for me though, as I'll be better able to make a history of my planet now.

Again, thanks.

TheBorg