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.

 

Testing The Bible Scientifically Part 3 / The Genesis Flood and More

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
www.one-gospel.org...I found this story online and was astounded ? No. I did and do find it intersting to say the very least. The story talks about The Bibles version of The Genisis Flood and if it is in error Scientifically. Also several other interesting facts..


To many people the Bible is just a book of mythology; a nice collection of stories useful for moral teaching. In a world where science is revered as the arbiter of truth the Bible’s claims can seem unbelievable. How could someone believe in a book that claims the world was created in seven days? Or that all living creatures were destroyed by forty days of rain? Or that a sea could be parted to allow one million people to walk through on dry land, before returning to wash away a pursuing army of Egyptians? To those who have learned about the history of the world from scientists and statisticians, the Bible’s stories may appear more like myth than reality

But what happens when we take these seemingly fantastic stories and claims made by the Bible and analyze them by the very science they appear to contradict? We will consider the scenario the Bible describes before, during and after the alleged Flood event, and examine from a scientific perspective the credibility of the details of the Biblical account


Below is the link to the full story. If you can look at this with a fair open mind , it won't take magic to be scratching your head.

www.one-gospel.org...
edit on 29-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: link

edit on 29-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm personally well aware that there's plenty of pseudo-science to support the bible. Creation science, Flood Science, Intelligent Design. They come, not from true scientific research, but from a publics willingness to grasp at them even if true scientists see past them. There's an 'explanation' or 'prove' for everything.

I'm not going to tackle everything in this specific article, I'm just going to recommend any readers. Can easily Google and see why any of the claims are dismissed. Why the bible is far from considered scientifically proven.

A link to get started
And another

No time tonight, but otherwise I'd go through and check all the claims I wasn't already familiar with(If any). Post my findings. Instead, just gonna drop this bit of advice; don't be too trusting, research claims, and understand that even by the posted opening paragraph, it already has made itself out to be very biased.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
All that you need to show that the biblical flood isn't correct scientifically is common sense.

www.mechon-mamre.org...

And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered

en.wikipedia.org...

The cubit is a traditional unit of length, based on the length of the forearm. Cubits of various lengths were employed in many parts of the world in Antiquity, in the Middle Ages and into Early Modern Times.


Fifteen cubits is hardly enough to cover the earth. It probably wouldn't even be enough water to cause the ARK to float, much less end up on a mountain.

I can continue with more evidence, but people will believe what they want to believe.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 




Testing The Bible Scientifically

Isn't that an oxymoron?



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by isyeye
All that you need to show that the biblical flood isn't correct scientifically is common sense.

www.mechon-mamre.org...

And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.


Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered

en.wikipedia.org...

The cubit is a traditional unit of length, based on the length of the forearm. Cubits of various lengths were employed in many parts of the world in Antiquity, in the Middle Ages and into Early Modern Times.


Fifteen cubits is hardly enough to cover the earth. It probably wouldn't even be enough water to cause the ARK to float, much less end up on a mountain.

I can continue with more evidence, but people will believe what they want to believe.


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


CherubBaby Replies::

Thats fifteen feet above the mountain tops if you pull the literal translation. and look it up. The ark weighed tens of thousands of tons.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I'm personally well aware that there's plenty of pseudo-science to support the bible. Creation science, Flood Science, Intelligent Design. They come, not from true scientific research, but from a publics willingness to grasp at them even if true scientists see past them. There's an 'explanation' or 'prove' for everything.

I'm not going to tackle everything in this specific article, I'm just going to recommend any readers. Can easily Google and see why any of the claims are dismissed. Why the bible is far from considered scientifically proven.

A link to get started
And another

No time tonight, but otherwise I'd go through and check all the claims I wasn't already familiar with(If any). Post my findings. Instead, just gonna drop this bit of advice; don't be too trusting, research claims, and understand that even by the posted opening paragraph, it already has made itself out to be very biased.


I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion but it must be done. Archeaology has already proved the "great flood" in fact has happened. Archeaology has also proved Jericho did exist and in the spot the bible said it did and that it was also razed and burnt to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Troy actually did exist and that it too was razed to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Herodium in fact did exist and many ancient cities in Israel that are in the bible actually did exist like Caesaria and even the Temple of Herod and jewish coins from the first century A.D. were in fact discovered at the base of the Mt. Moriah with maccabee inscriptions on them.

Archeaology is a well established and well respected science by the world scientific community world wide, it is hardly "psuedo-science".



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I do believe you'll find evidence for stories in the bible but I think there's an excellent reason for this..

Simply put, I believe the bible is a collection of morality stories that are based around real events.. Exaggerated, altered and embellished to serve the purpose of providing a morality lesson.

There was a regional flood, the character of "Noah" existed but that wasn't his name and his story is much older than the bible.. the real Noah was a Sumarian trader who traded along the Euphrates in Mesopotamia.. He had built a vessel to carry his items along the river .. hardly the Ark that is told of in the bible =) .. the flooding was localized to the region... it was NOT a global event, there have been many floods in history.. despite what you might think there is no evidence of a single, global flood.

this story has been adopted by many religions and has been passed on with modifications throughout history .. I feel most, if not all biblical stories are similar in origin..

This is why you will find some evidence for biblical stories, because many of the events did happen in some form or another.. just not mystically so
edit on 12/29/2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Very interesting article! I also understand that there is also a Syrian account of a global flood during approximately the same time period as the biblical account is to have taken place. Do you think that it is possible that other people on earth could have survived the flood other than Noah and his family? I haven't done the math, but it is hard to see how Noah and his family could repopulate the earth as quickly as they did.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


There's no evidence of a single "great flood" that covered the earth.. there was a "great flood" in Mesopotamia but was regional and didn't cover the earth, this is the flood that inspired the Noah story ( who was just a sumarian trader ) .. There has been plenty of flooding on the planet throughout history, so yes you'll find evidence of floods almost anywhere..
edit on 12/29/2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Your account of Noah is not correct. Also the reason there are worldwide acccounts of the flood is because it was a worldwide event. If you would takke the time to read the link you would see that there is and are plenty of corroborating stories Like this one below. and this is just a part of the story, below


Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.


www.nwcreation.net...



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


We shall agree to disagree =)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I'm personally well aware that there's plenty of pseudo-science to support the bible. Creation science, Flood Science, Intelligent Design. They come, not from true scientific research, but from a publics willingness to grasp at them even if true scientists see past them. There's an 'explanation' or 'prove' for everything.

I'm not going to tackle everything in this specific article, I'm just going to recommend any readers. Can easily Google and see why any of the claims are dismissed. Why the bible is far from considered scientifically proven.

A link to get started
And another

No time tonight, but otherwise I'd go through and check all the claims I wasn't already familiar with(If any). Post my findings. Instead, just gonna drop this bit of advice; don't be too trusting, research claims, and understand that even by the posted opening paragraph, it already has made itself out to be very biased.


I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion but it must be done. Archeaology has already proved the "great flood" in fact has happened. Archeaology has also proved Jericho did exist and in the spot the bible said it did and that it was also razed and burnt to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Troy actually did exist and that it too was razed to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Herodium in fact did exist and many ancient cities in Israel that are in the bible actually did exist like Caesaria and even the Temple of Herod and jewish coins from the first century A.D. were in fact discovered at the base of the Mt. Moriah with maccabee inscriptions on them.

Archeaology is a well established and well respected science by the world scientific community world wide, it is hardly "psuedo-science".


I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion too, bub. But the bible is no more Archeologically accurate than any other fantasy of the past. Older Myths and stories, many things you dismiss out of hand. The Epic of Gilgamesh comes to mind quite well.

These fictional stories often took place in, or had part of, real places at the times. Even sometimes alerting us to their existence long before we discovered them Archeologically.

Claiming that that proves any supernatural occurrences in the stories, is like saying the existence of America proves the Twilight Saga to be real events.

Archeology does prove that the bible was written roughly around the time frame it claims to of been. But nothing more. Trying to misappropriate that into a proof that the whole account is factual, is where it leaves the realm of genuine Archeology, and becomes psuedo-scientific.

~
I'll be completely honest with you though. Archeology is not my strong suit. Historical accuracies and inaccuracies, supposed predications that came true, I'm not the best versed in it. Probably the thing I know least about as far as judging religion. Mostly because I rarely come across specific claims that are relevant to anything.

So, if you wish to make a thread, discussing how Archeology proves or disproves the accuracy of the bible. I will read your thread and enjoy exposing myself to new information.

~

[edit] Continuity of ancient civilizations
In the 24th century BCE, several ancient civilizations - notably Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley - had existed, and continued to exist, without any sign of total extinction from a global flood. Egypt has a continuous written history going back to about 3100 BCE, (plus archaeological evidence of continuous habitation going back to 9000 BCE ) and the only floods they talked about were the annual flood of the Nile River which irrigated their crops.


Here's just a tiny bit of Archeology from one of the links I've already dropped. Doesn't seem like a branch of science that completely agree's with a Global Flood to me.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by britelite1971
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Very interesting article! I also understand that there is also a Syrian account of a global flood during approximately the same time period as the biblical account is to have taken place. Do you think that it is possible that other people on earth could have survived the flood other than Noah and his family? I haven't done the math, but it is hard to see how Noah and his family could repopulate the earth as quickly as they did.


Not just Assyrian (Syria is short for Assyria) but also Sumerian. Enoch was Sumerian and he is mentioned in the Enuma Elish (Tablets of Creation) and the story of how God took him away although God's name was EA at the time. Note how EA (pronounced EH-YAH) sounds very similar to the name YAH (also Eh-YAH but faster like EYAH). I have wrangled over the pronounciations between the 2 names and i am almost certain that EA is YAH, the fact that Enoch being mentioned in both the Enuma Elish and the bible at the same time with incredibly simliar stories (see book of Enoch).

The interesting thing is where the Enuma Elish leaves off in the Bible, is right about when Abraham hits the scene (Shem's great great grandson). In my opinion I think the bible is actually a continuation of the Enuma Elish. The Enuma Elish also mentions the Nephilim and goes into greater detail about them than the bible and how their wars against mankind nearly destroyed us until God stepped in and put a curse on them so the anunnaki "the watchers from heaven" (angels) who abandoned their post in heaven and took wives from the daughters of men, could no longer breed their monster hybrids to kill us with and the flood was sent to kill them.

Even the book of Job is thought widely to be the first written book of the bible and to actually pre-date the Torah. The bible just has so much in common with the Enuma-Elish, right down to the great flood. It's an interesting read. They key is not thinking of the anunnaki as gods because even they said they were not the Creator EA, they most likely are what you and i know today as angels or as the hebrew word means "messengers".
edit on 29-12-2011 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


How about this then.....

ga.water.usgs.gov...

As you know, the Earth is a watery place. But just how much water exists on, in, and above our planet? The picture to the left shows the size of a sphere that would contain all of Earth's water in comparison to the size of the Earth. You're probably thinking I missed a decimal point when running my calculator since surely all the water on, in, and above the Earth would fill a ball a lot larger than that "tiny" blue sphere sitting on the United States, reaching from about Salt Lake City, Utah to Topeka, Kansas. But, no, this diagram is indeed correct.

About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. But water also exists in the air as water vapor, in rivers and lakes, in icecaps and glaciers, in the ground as soil moisture and aquifers, and even in you and your dog. Still, all that water would fit into that tiny ball. The ball is actually much larger than it looks like on your computer monitor or printed page because we're talking about volume, a 3-dimensional shape, but trying to show it on a flat, 2-dimensional screen or piece of paper. That tiny water bubble has a diameter of about 860 miles, meaning the height (towards your vision) would be 860 miles high, too! That is a lot of water.



There is not enough water on earth to physically cover the entire earth 15 cubits deep over the tallest mountain.


edit on 29-12-2011 by isyeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


There's no evidence of a single "great flood" that covered the earth.. there was a "great flood" in Mesopotamia but was regional and didn't cover the earth, this is the flood that inspired the Noah story ( who was just a sumarian trader ) .. There has been plenty of flooding on the planet throughout history, so yes you'll find evidence of floods almost anywhere..
edit on 12/29/2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


I never said it covered the whole earth. The bible says it covered the whole earth, but in the bible the "whole earth" was considered to be as far as their eyes could see and as far as the lands they knew of which was Mesopotamia and Northern Africa to the Mediteranean as far as the Pillars of Heracles (Straight of Gibraltar). So technically the whole earth was covered as far as the ancients knew. Modern archeaology can also prove that the entire earth actually did flood because the oceans sea levels have risen 400 feet since 12,000 B.C. and the areas that early man was living in (along the coastlines and lowlands) actually did flood and rather quickly. This is known to be true because paleolithic settlements and foundations of settlements have been discovered on the bottom of the english channel which means England and Ireland were once apart of western Europe. Then theres the Bimini Road in the Bahamas and both the Bahamas and Cuba were once also a part of the north american continent.

I've done extensive study on these matters since my college days as an anthropology major (emphasis on archeaology). Whatever the case i am absolutely certain that this is all linked together. It doesnt matter if you believe in God or anything in the bible but the evidence is there if you know what to look for. I have studied ancient history for years and the more i learn the more i find out i am just barely scratching the surface. So much has been lost and so much has yet to be rediscovered but rediscoveries happen on a daily basis. Personally i believe in YAHWAH and Jesus, so that gives me a bit of an advantage because it enables me to know where to look and roughly how far back.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by isyeye
 


It was 15 cubits above the mountains actually and your wrong about your assumptions of the amount of water that was used for the flood and where it came from.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I'm personally well aware that there's plenty of pseudo-science to support the bible. Creation science, Flood Science, Intelligent Design. They come, not from true scientific research, but from a publics willingness to grasp at them even if true scientists see past them. There's an 'explanation' or 'prove' for everything.

I'm not going to tackle everything in this specific article, I'm just going to recommend any readers. Can easily Google and see why any of the claims are dismissed. Why the bible is far from considered scientifically proven.

A link to get started
And another

No time tonight, but otherwise I'd go through and check all the claims I wasn't already familiar with(If any). Post my findings. Instead, just gonna drop this bit of advice; don't be too trusting, research claims, and understand that even by the posted opening paragraph, it already has made itself out to be very biased.


I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion but it must be done. Archeaology has already proved the "great flood" in fact has happened. Archeaology has also proved Jericho did exist and in the spot the bible said it did and that it was also razed and burnt to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Troy actually did exist and that it too was razed to the ground. Archeaology has also proved that Herodium in fact did exist and many ancient cities in Israel that are in the bible actually did exist like Caesaria and even the Temple of Herod and jewish coins from the first century A.D. were in fact discovered at the base of the Mt. Moriah with maccabee inscriptions on them.

Archeaology is a well established and well respected science by the world scientific community world wide, it is hardly "psuedo-science".


I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion too, bub. But the bible is no more Archeologically accurate than any other fantasy of the past. Older Myths and stories, many things you dismiss out of hand. The Epic of Gilgamesh comes to mind quite well.

These fictional stories often took place in, or had part of, real places at the times. Even sometimes alerting us to their existence long before we discovered them Archeologically.

Claiming that that proves any supernatural occurrences in the stories, is like saying the existence of America proves the Twilight Saga to be real events.

Archeology does prove that the bible was written roughly around the time frame it claims to of been. But nothing more. Trying to misappropriate that into a proof that the whole account is factual, is where it leaves the realm of genuine Archeology, and becomes psuedo-scientific.

~
I'll be completely honest with you though. Archeology is not my strong suit. Historical accuracies and inaccuracies, supposed predications that came true, I'm not the best versed in it. Probably the thing I know least about as far as judging religion. Mostly because I rarely come across specific claims that are relevant to anything.

So, if you wish to make a thread, discussing how Archeology proves or disproves the accuracy of the bible. I will read your thread and enjoy exposing myself to new information.

~

[edit] Continuity of ancient civilizations
In the 24th century BCE, several ancient civilizations - notably Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley - had existed, and continued to exist, without any sign of total extinction from a global flood. Egypt has a continuous written history going back to about 3100 BCE, (plus archaeological evidence of continuous habitation going back to 9000 BCE ) and the only floods they talked about were the annual flood of the Nile River which irrigated their crops.


Here's just a tiny bit of Archeology from one of the links I've already dropped. Doesn't seem like a branch of science that completely agree's with a Global Flood to me.


We can argue about this all day long bro, but youre going to be wrong everytime. I suggest you look up some biblical archeaologists online and read some of their research papers. The evidence is there. In fact i'll tell you where to begin that search, look at universities in Israel.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Okay, let's assume for a minute that the flood did cover the WHOLE Earth and destroy all humans and animals besides for Noah, his family, and the 2 animals of every species on the planet which were on the ark with Noah.(not counting waterborne species)

My question to those who espouse this is simple: Where did the giants mentioned in the Bible post-flood come from? Since all the giants on Earth mentioned earlier in Genesis would have been killed in the flood along with the other normal folks.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


We can argue about this all day long bro, but youre [sic] going to be wrong everytime.[sic]


Right back atcha, big fella.
There is absolutely no geological evidence for a global flood.
Obviously god was telling porkies when he said that he'd flood the world. It just didn't happen.
[sarcasm] Oh, I see, he meant only the world of those who were his vassals..ah, nice try at dodging and making up evidence to fit the claim.[/sarcasm]

Go on then, you show me evidence of this global flood.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


We can argue about this all day long bro, but youre [sic] going to be wrong everytime.[sic]


Right back atcha, big fella.
There is absolutely no geological evidence for a global flood.
Obviously god was telling porkies when he said that he'd flood the world. It just didn't happen.
[sarcasm] Oh, I see, he meant only the world of those who were his vassals..ah, nice try at dodging and making up evidence to fit the claim.[/sarcasm]

Go on then, you show me evidence of this global flood.



Erm, i just did. The whole part about the earths oceans rising 400 feet since 12000 B.C.? Where the hell do you think early man was living in sky scrapers? No, they were living on the coastlines of the seas where fish and seafood were abundant. Water starts rising, they abandon their settlements and move further inland until the water stops rising. See? Rising waters=flood. Take a look at the Black Sea, bottom half is freshwater, top half is salt water. So howd that happen? Well, when the ice age ended the earth grew warmer and the ice shelves began to melt, the ice that blocks the gap in the pillars of heracles melted and all that salty atlantic water came rushing in (foundations of settlements found all on the bottom of the mediteranean in hundreds of sites) and the mediteranean rose and overflowed the bosporus river leading to the black sea and presto changeo, anyone living on the coastlines of the mediteranean lake and the black sea lake ended up with a watery grave and the evidence of their settlements left on the bottoms of those seas for underwater archeaologists to go pick clean.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join