Yes, branded heretics by the Catholic Church. Wouldn't be their first doctrinal error, either. The Bible hasn't lost any war, but narrow Christians have coughed up some battles along the way, to be sure.
Noah's Ark Found?
- Thread starter FLhawk
- Start date
Yes, branded heretics by the Catholic Church. Wouldn't be their first doctrinal error, either. The Bible hasn't lost any war, but narrow Christians have coughed up some battles along the way, to be sure.
I was hoping somebody would ask this question, or one like it. this thread will never die!
The event in question was a solar eclipse that occured around noon on Abib 29, or April 18, 1421 B.C and had ZERO to do with the Bible making any claims of a geocentric universe. That's a conclusion you've jumped to on your own.
The scriptural quote in question refers to Joshua asking God to 'make the sun and moon to go silent' so he would have enough time to defeat the enemy (Isreal was badly outnumbered on this day). This was a concept useful exclusively in this situation, as Joshua was aiding Gibeon, who had come under seige by the armies of five Amorite kings. The Amorites worshipped the storm-god Baal, as well as the sun and moon. The Amorites likely took the eclipse to mean that their gods were displeased with them, not good for the old morale when you're up against another army claiming the aid and protection of a different God.
Not to mention that the Bible specifically states that far more Amorite soldiers were killed by large hailstones than by Joshua's forces. I'm sure you are aware that these can accompany the sudden cooling conditions brought on by a solar eclipse.
Scholars of Hebrew have long considered this to be an 'optical stoppage' of the sun and moon. The sun would have risen once in the morning, been darkened, then risen AGAIN AT NOON by way of the eclipse. Hence the 'long day'. To the casual observer, it would have appeared as though the sun and moon actually stood still before the sun rose again, rather than arcing to and from the horizon as it always does. Bearing in mind how people kept time before mechanical devices, this is significant.
The combination of these events scared the crap out of the Amorites, which effectively made Joshua's day a heck of a lot shorter, BTW. Israel probably would have been trounced otherwise.
This is a poorly constructed post after rereading it, but you should get the general picture. If you want a more thorough explanation, I'd be happy to walk you through the days leading up to the battle for Gibeon. It's mundane, but necessary to illustrate my argument properly. Tomorrow. Nighty night.
This post was edited on 5/1 2:46 AM
sarge certainly has a novel theory for mountain formation. One, I doubt, that many geologists would support. It is comments such as these that lessen whatever scientific credibility the fundamentalists presume to have.
Many mountain valleys are carved by glacial erosion, which is still happening today in places. The Himalayas are still rising. The "flood erosion" theory also does not account for the age differences of mountains, such as the Appalachians vs. the Rockys.
This is from the Moorlands School site (in the UK):
I must not forget to mention the Himalayas and Mount Everest because this is the third example of plate movement
Millions of years ago India and an ancient ocean called the Tethys Ocean were sat on a tectonic plate. This plate was moving northwards towards Asia at a rate of 10 centimetres per year. The Tethys oceanic crust was being subducted under the Asian Continent. The ocean got progressively smaller until about 55 milion years ago when India 'hit' Asia. There was no more ocean left to lubricate the subduction and so the plates welled up to form the High Plateau of Tibet and the Himalayan Mountains. The continental crust under Tibet is over 70 kilometres thick. North of Katmandu, the capital of Nepal, is a deep gorge in the Himalayas. the rock here is made of schist and granite with contorted and folded layers of marine sediments which were deposited by the Tethys ocean over 60 million years ago.
Earth Science: Plate Tectonics
So what if a boat really is found to be on top of that mountain, what are you skeptics going to be saying then? Im not taking sides, I have my doubts about it being Noahs Ark, but would like nothing more than it to be true. If they excavate a boat and can scientifically place it to Noahs era what will you all think?
NPR-
I never said it would prove anything. I was simply wondering what you all would think and if it would change your opinions on certain things. The only explanation I have ever heard that seems to make sense is Noahs Ark, so i was wondering as to the explanations you may come up with if it in deed is a boat. If it is a boat on top of the 17,000 foot mountain that does date back to Noahs time are you still going to doubt a "supreme being," believe that water levels were that high at one time, the mountain rose over time, or someone back in the day climbed the mountain and made a boat to try and make the story more believable??? Just curious.
I never said it would prove anything. I was simply wondering what you all would think and if it would change your opinions on certain things. The only explanation I have ever heard that seems to make sense is Noahs Ark, so i was wondering as to the explanations you may come up with if it in deed is a boat. If it is a boat on top of the 17,000 foot mountain that does date back to Noahs time are you still going to doubt a "supreme being," believe that water levels were that high at one time, the mountain rose over time, or someone back in the day climbed the mountain and made a boat to try and make the story more believable??? Just curious.
Let's just say there's about as much chance of Noah's Ark being found atop Mount Ararat as there is of the sun stopping in mid-sky for several hours tomorrow. I am not concerning myself with either possibility.
This post was edited on 5/1 3:40 PM
I read your post, chafed. It's an interesting perspective - though it hits back at the heart of the question of just how literal should biblical literalists take the words of the book.
I was simply using a prior debate to make light of the probability with which I view this "expedition's" chances of success.
.
.
.
Alternatively, perhaps I am completely blinded by my skepticism, and my recent problems logging into this site are a sign from god?
This post was edited on 5/1 10:02 PM
I was simply using a prior debate to make light of the probability with which I view this "expedition's" chances of success.
.
.
.
Alternatively, perhaps I am completely blinded by my skepticism, and my recent problems logging into this site are a sign from god?
This post was edited on 5/1 10:02 PM
I do understand where you're coming from, Thumper, especially where the Mt. Ararat expedition is concerned. I'm very skeptical myself, even though I honestly believe that is where the ark would hypothetically rest.
Just FWIW, and I don't mean this harshly, but God isn't going to do your thinking for you. It baffles me why people think Biblical literalism is just simply taking every phrase of the King's English at face value and completely out of context (see above). Just like anything else, Biblical history has got to be examined with context clues. Also, it wasn't written in English, so why would anybody think that breezing over scripture would impart all the answers? Here's a good example: there are dozens of Hebrew words for 'love', i.e love of a father, love of a mother, love of God, etc. Each word means something different though they all indicate a kind of love. We use one word for all kinds of love. Tell me something isn't lost in the translation. The Bible is absolutely chock full of situations like the one above, where the answers aren't easy or readily apparent without some thought and effort.
In other words, IMHO the sun and moon really DID 'stop', because that was what was observed by witnesses at the time to the best of their understanding. In retrospect, we have a perfectly good explanation for the event, at the time they obviously didn't. They still saw what they saw. Context clues.
Having any more luck with logging on yet?
Just FWIW, and I don't mean this harshly, but God isn't going to do your thinking for you. It baffles me why people think Biblical literalism is just simply taking every phrase of the King's English at face value and completely out of context (see above). Just like anything else, Biblical history has got to be examined with context clues. Also, it wasn't written in English, so why would anybody think that breezing over scripture would impart all the answers? Here's a good example: there are dozens of Hebrew words for 'love', i.e love of a father, love of a mother, love of God, etc. Each word means something different though they all indicate a kind of love. We use one word for all kinds of love. Tell me something isn't lost in the translation. The Bible is absolutely chock full of situations like the one above, where the answers aren't easy or readily apparent without some thought and effort.
In other words, IMHO the sun and moon really DID 'stop', because that was what was observed by witnesses at the time to the best of their understanding. In retrospect, we have a perfectly good explanation for the event, at the time they obviously didn't. They still saw what they saw. Context clues.
Having any more luck with logging on yet?
What it would show is that some culture way back when had developed the technology to build a sea-faring vessel. Pretty impressive, regardless of which culture it was. How it got to 17,000 feet above sea level? I don't know. Possibly built at that elevation (for what reason?) or possibly preserved and transported through glacial movements. Who knows at this point? But it would not prove that there was a flood that rose to 17,000 FEET above the current sea level a mere 10,000 years ago or so. Doesn't jibe with common sense let alone scientific knowledge of the earth's history.
Enough of this history crap. Jesus is alive and well right now, he's an American, he has a car-boat, and he can drive on water! Kicks that Noah's Ark boat right out of the water. Go, Jesus, Go! (Anyone else think Jesus looks a little like Adam Corolla from the Man Show?).
This post was edited on 5/2 4:25 PM
This post was edited on 5/2 4:25 PM
July 15th is the start date, according to the Guardian:
Scientists to search for Noah's ark on Turkish mountain
Expedition will study 'man-made object' shown by satellite photos
Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Monday May 3, 2004
The Guardian
The CIA calls it the "Ararat anomaly". Mountaineers call it the peak of the unforgiving range on the Turkish-Armenian border. But some scientists think it might hold a far greater historical significance as the great archaeological mirage - the remains of Noah's ark.
Ten explorers and scientists from the US and Turkey will embark on an expedition on July 15 to scale Mount Ararat, 4,700 metres (15,000ft) above sea level, to determine what is behind the image that has been picked up by spy satellites in the past two decades.
New satellite pictures suggest a huge 14-metre-high structure that was exposed when the heatwave that hit Europe last summer melted the snowcap that had obscured it for years.
The expedition will be led by Ahmet Ali Arslan, an English professor at Seljuk University in Turkey. An experienced mountaineer, he has already scaled Mt Ararat 40 times and grew up around the mountain range.
"The slopes are very, very harsh and dangerous on the northern face - it is extremely challenging, mentally and physically," said Mr Arslan, who was once a prime-ministerial aide.
The expedition can only occur with the consent of the Turkish government, and Mr Arslan will meet the prime minister next week to discuss the proposed trip. The estimated cost is £500,000 and will be met by Daniel McGivern, a businessman and Christian activist from Hawaii.
At a press conference to announce the trip this week he said: "We are not excavating it. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it."
"These new photos unequivocally show a man-made object," he added. "I am convinced that the excavation of the object and the results of tests run on any collected samples will prove that it is Noah's ark."
Mr McGivern's Trinity Corporation last year used Quick Bird, the world's highest resolution satellite, to photograph the anomaly.
He has said he is 98% sure that the object is the ark, because of beams of wood he said were visible in the images.
The Bible says that the ark, packed with either seven or two of each creature, male and female, on earth, came to rest on the mountains of Ararat after the great floods - thought to have occurred in 5,600BC, when the Mediterranean flooded into the basin where the Black Sea now sits.
Sceptics have pointed out that Noah would have had to load 460 organisms a second to fill the ark with two of each species in 24 hours as the Bible suggests.
The object on Mount Ararat was first noticed by the CIA in 1949 from a spy plane.
Turkish pilots saw it again 10 years later, and the pictures began to reinforce the myth around the vessel, giving Christians apparent archeological evidence that part of Genesis could be physically substantiated.
The region was off limits until 1982 because of Soviet complaints that explorers were spying. Since then, teams of explorers have tried to reach the ark, but failed to substantiate what the object is.
Geologists have discovered evidence of a flood in the region known as Mesopotamia in Sumerian times (6,000 years ago), yet have maintained that it is not possible for a ship to have made landfall at an altitude as high as that of Mt Ararat.
Noah's Ark Expedition
Re: Good question NPR...........
I agree, Mike.
I hope the "facts" that arise from this expedition
do not prevent people from joining a church or lessen
their faith in christianity.
That's the problem with people who want to hang
their hat on historical/factual accuracy of the bible.
If the facts are shown to be wrong, the fundamentalists
will either ignore the issue and move on to another, or
will bend over backwards creating explanations why the current
scientific community is incorrect.
The faith of most mainstream christians will not be
changed by the results of the ark study. The fundamentlists
perform a disservice to the rest of christianity by
being so vocal about biblical literacy. They give the impression
that christianity is populated by creationists, which turns
a lot of people off, people who otherwise might seriously
consider the important moral tenets that christianity has to offer.
Look at the drdino site, used by sarge to buttress his position on the Ica Stones. The man behind the drdino site claims that the UPC code is the sign of the beast (as foretold in Revelation).
To cut and paste from Sousy's post:
Do you think the theory of evolution is a Satanic plot to bring about the New World Order? Are you worried that Darwin's idea produced "Communism, Socialism, Naziism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement?" Then Dr. Kent Hovind is for you.
Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy.
Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism." "Democracy," he says, "is evil and contrary to God's law."
...
Creationism is a fundamentalist issue with wide appeal. By tying it to more radical antigovernment and conspiracy ideas — for instance, the "unregistered church" movement (see article Church vs. State) — Hovind is attempting to draw conservatives into a world of far-right conspiracy-mongering and anti-Semitism.
Hovind does allow for loose interpretation of the Bible on at least one issue, though. His Web site, www.drdino.com, suggests that "the mark of the beast" from Revelations 13:16 is actually the UPC bar code.
"Four people have called me from Arkansas and Missouri," writes Hovind, "to report seeing customers at the grocery store pay for purchases by scanning their hand."
This is a site that fundamenalists are using to support their scientific claims! Absolutely incredible.
Maybe it's not a coincidence that the US is falling behind in science.
U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences
I agree, Mike.
I hope the "facts" that arise from this expedition
do not prevent people from joining a church or lessen
their faith in christianity.
That's the problem with people who want to hang
their hat on historical/factual accuracy of the bible.
If the facts are shown to be wrong, the fundamentalists
will either ignore the issue and move on to another, or
will bend over backwards creating explanations why the current
scientific community is incorrect.
The faith of most mainstream christians will not be
changed by the results of the ark study. The fundamentlists
perform a disservice to the rest of christianity by
being so vocal about biblical literacy. They give the impression
that christianity is populated by creationists, which turns
a lot of people off, people who otherwise might seriously
consider the important moral tenets that christianity has to offer.
Look at the drdino site, used by sarge to buttress his position on the Ica Stones. The man behind the drdino site claims that the UPC code is the sign of the beast (as foretold in Revelation).
To cut and paste from Sousy's post:
Do you think the theory of evolution is a Satanic plot to bring about the New World Order? Are you worried that Darwin's idea produced "Communism, Socialism, Naziism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement?" Then Dr. Kent Hovind is for you.
Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy.
Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism." "Democracy," he says, "is evil and contrary to God's law."
...
Creationism is a fundamentalist issue with wide appeal. By tying it to more radical antigovernment and conspiracy ideas — for instance, the "unregistered church" movement (see article Church vs. State) — Hovind is attempting to draw conservatives into a world of far-right conspiracy-mongering and anti-Semitism.
Hovind does allow for loose interpretation of the Bible on at least one issue, though. His Web site, www.drdino.com, suggests that "the mark of the beast" from Revelations 13:16 is actually the UPC bar code.
"Four people have called me from Arkansas and Missouri," writes Hovind, "to report seeing customers at the grocery store pay for purchases by scanning their hand."
This is a site that fundamenalists are using to support their scientific claims! Absolutely incredible.
Maybe it's not a coincidence that the US is falling behind in science.
U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences
Re: Good question NPR...........
[Copied from other thread]
[Sarge Hulka said:]
Hell, in the Noah thread Sousy posted something that in effect, agreed with my point of view & NPR was in such a rush to accept it -- he read it as a refutation of my viewpoint. Unbelievable.
Actually, NPR was right in the notion that I don't agree with the use of ice layers to prove the existance of "the great flood" - I took notice of the fact you were distorting the use of the word "annular" to somehow come up with a roundabout attack on the measurement of ages of glaciers by estimating snowfall accumulations.
The notion that less packed ice and snow covers an airplane squadron does not somehow provide a smoking gun in favor of creationism.
(Note: in the interest of containing discussions, I'll copy-paste this response to the Noah's Ark thread.)
[Copied from other thread]
[Sarge Hulka said:]
Hell, in the Noah thread Sousy posted something that in effect, agreed with my point of view & NPR was in such a rush to accept it -- he read it as a refutation of my viewpoint. Unbelievable.
Actually, NPR was right in the notion that I don't agree with the use of ice layers to prove the existance of "the great flood" - I took notice of the fact you were distorting the use of the word "annular" to somehow come up with a roundabout attack on the measurement of ages of glaciers by estimating snowfall accumulations.
The notion that less packed ice and snow covers an airplane squadron does not somehow provide a smoking gun in favor of creationism.
(Note: in the interest of containing discussions, I'll copy-paste this response to the Noah's Ark thread.)
So what if a boat really is found to be on top of that mountain, what are you skeptics going to be saying then?
It depends. If there is also tons and tons of animal dung on board it will cause me to sit up and take notice!
It depends. If there is also tons and tons of animal dung on board it will cause me to sit up and take notice!
Re: Good question NPR...........
Okay, back to this point:
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
Okay, to address the point Sarge was making elsewhere...
Using the term "annular" can be wildly misleading (as Sarge did earlier). The talkorigins site actually has a decent introduction to different methods of determining ages of glaciers and ice layers.
The method Sarge is thinking of is the first:
Counting of Annual Layers
The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience (less irradience in winter and more in summer). Once such markers of seasonal variations are found, they can be used to find the number of years that the ice-core accumulated over. This process is analagous to the counting of tree rings. A major disadvantage of these types of dating is that they are extremely time consuming.
So, counting layers is time consuming, and trying to determine this based on snows, etc. is not a very accurate method. We know from our own experience that climate can vary from year to year.
But, there are also other rough methods of estimating (in the link):
I. Methods of Dating Ice Cores
A. Counting of Annual Layers
1. Temperature Dependent
2. Irradiation Dependent
B. Using Pre-Determined Ages as Markers
1. Previously Measured Ice-Cores
2. Oceanic Cores
3. Volcanic Eruptions
4. Ph Balances
5. Paleoclimatic Comparison
C. Radioactive Dating of Gaseous Inclusions
D. Ice Flow Calculations
I am assuming that ages estimated by ice cores is vetted through nearly all of these methods - which is only accurate to give a 'ballpark' of the age. It's also how we determine the paths of glaciers through the arctic and through Alaska.
One might think that a worldwide flood would either leave some distinctive marks.
Note: the only way we can 'count back to see how long ago the flood occurred' is by counting generations in the Bible - which might have its own issues, no?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Okay, back to this point:
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
Okay, to address the point Sarge was making elsewhere...
Using the term "annular" can be wildly misleading (as Sarge did earlier). The talkorigins site actually has a decent introduction to different methods of determining ages of glaciers and ice layers.
The method Sarge is thinking of is the first:
Counting of Annual Layers
The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience (less irradience in winter and more in summer). Once such markers of seasonal variations are found, they can be used to find the number of years that the ice-core accumulated over. This process is analagous to the counting of tree rings. A major disadvantage of these types of dating is that they are extremely time consuming.
So, counting layers is time consuming, and trying to determine this based on snows, etc. is not a very accurate method. We know from our own experience that climate can vary from year to year.
But, there are also other rough methods of estimating (in the link):
I. Methods of Dating Ice Cores
A. Counting of Annual Layers
1. Temperature Dependent
2. Irradiation Dependent
B. Using Pre-Determined Ages as Markers
1. Previously Measured Ice-Cores
2. Oceanic Cores
3. Volcanic Eruptions
4. Ph Balances
5. Paleoclimatic Comparison
C. Radioactive Dating of Gaseous Inclusions
D. Ice Flow Calculations
I am assuming that ages estimated by ice cores is vetted through nearly all of these methods - which is only accurate to give a 'ballpark' of the age. It's also how we determine the paths of glaciers through the arctic and through Alaska.
One might think that a worldwide flood would either leave some distinctive marks.
Note: the only way we can 'count back to see how long ago the flood occurred' is by counting generations in the Bible - which might have its own issues, no?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
SousyHawk
It's certainly worthy of legendary status, but we'll let it go a bit longer and than put it over there to be revived in June when the expedition takes place.
This could get very interesting.
Mike
It's certainly worthy of legendary status, but we'll let it go a bit longer and than put it over there to be revived in June when the expedition takes place.
This could get very interesting.
Mike
More Ark questions....
OK, here's a few other facts to fit into place for the literalists:
1) It rained, right? A LOT...40 days/40 nights. And then Noah sent out a dove to look for land, right? And after a couple weeks or so, the dove brought back an olive branch, right?
So, if the Ark is 12,000+ feet up on Ararat, where are the olive trees at that elevation?
2) If everything was flooded, wouldn't the salinity of the water have killed all the trees anyway? How long for an olive tree to grow and sprout leaves, assuming it can live in a salty marsh?
3) How the hell did Noah and the gang climb DOWN from Mt Ararat? That's a helluva trek, and you'd think they'd have written SOMETHING about it.
4) Why are there isolated freshwater lakes after only 6,000 years? Wouldn't they all be salt leftover from the flood?
5) I like the ice question-why didn't all the icecaps melt, float away?
6) Did Noah have an aquarium to protect all the freshwater fish and stuff in? They don't last long in saltwater.
7) Any comments on the scientific findings of the Black Sea and Dardanelles and how that body of water used to be freshwater (they've identified fossil remains of fish/mollusks etc that were know freshwater species dating to several thousand years ago, when they all just died out there and were replaced with saltwater species)? The scientific explanation of the observed facts is that the Dardanelles broke through when the Black Sea was a freshwater isolated lake, creating a huge unprecedented flood of the region; evidence of civilizations/cities swallowed up by the deluge has been found. This is consistent w/ the Biblical record of 'a great flood', which would have only been a regional event, but to people living in the area at the time, it sure as hell would have looked like a worldwide event. (This was before 1492, if you recall, when Columbus found out the Earth might be round, not flat). Personally, I think this scientific discovery is fascinating, and a substantiation of the Bible, although not in its literal interpretations. There most definitely WAS a flood, but not in the way it's interpreted by the Creationist lobby....
Maybe this'll rejuve the thread here til June....
Evidence of Noah's story?
OK, here's a few other facts to fit into place for the literalists:
1) It rained, right? A LOT...40 days/40 nights. And then Noah sent out a dove to look for land, right? And after a couple weeks or so, the dove brought back an olive branch, right?
So, if the Ark is 12,000+ feet up on Ararat, where are the olive trees at that elevation?
2) If everything was flooded, wouldn't the salinity of the water have killed all the trees anyway? How long for an olive tree to grow and sprout leaves, assuming it can live in a salty marsh?
3) How the hell did Noah and the gang climb DOWN from Mt Ararat? That's a helluva trek, and you'd think they'd have written SOMETHING about it.
4) Why are there isolated freshwater lakes after only 6,000 years? Wouldn't they all be salt leftover from the flood?
5) I like the ice question-why didn't all the icecaps melt, float away?
6) Did Noah have an aquarium to protect all the freshwater fish and stuff in? They don't last long in saltwater.
7) Any comments on the scientific findings of the Black Sea and Dardanelles and how that body of water used to be freshwater (they've identified fossil remains of fish/mollusks etc that were know freshwater species dating to several thousand years ago, when they all just died out there and were replaced with saltwater species)? The scientific explanation of the observed facts is that the Dardanelles broke through when the Black Sea was a freshwater isolated lake, creating a huge unprecedented flood of the region; evidence of civilizations/cities swallowed up by the deluge has been found. This is consistent w/ the Biblical record of 'a great flood', which would have only been a regional event, but to people living in the area at the time, it sure as hell would have looked like a worldwide event. (This was before 1492, if you recall, when Columbus found out the Earth might be round, not flat). Personally, I think this scientific discovery is fascinating, and a substantiation of the Bible, although not in its literal interpretations. There most definitely WAS a flood, but not in the way it's interpreted by the Creationist lobby....
Maybe this'll rejuve the thread here til June....
Evidence of Noah's story?
Re: More Ark questions....
I'll take a wild stab at a couple of these...
1.) There is no way to speculate the elevation at which the dove found the olive branch...Were the waters still receding? Your question seems to imply that we would have to prove that olive trees grow at the top of mountains. I would say this is not necessarily true.
2.) Do you mean to say...'assuming it CAN'T live in a salty marsh...'? Maybe its possible that the tree was floating in a salty marsh (dormant) re-implanted itself on land as the water receded. My understanding is that olive trees are among the heartiest that exist. How mature did it have to be - does the Bible say the twig had 'leaves'? May it have just been a young twig with the beginnings of a blossom?
3.) I have no idea. We'll have to ask God.
4.) My understanding of predominant Creationist thought is that the water of the pre-flood era was likely much less saline than the oceans of today. The oceans have salt because of runoff, no? Why would a lake (that assumably is not fed by runoff) be salty? Ironically, measurements of the increasing salinity of the oceans date them to around 4500 years...
5.) I'm guessing because it wasn't warm enough...Honestly, I have no clue. Weren't much of the US & Canada covered by ice as recently as a few thousand years ago? I shouldn't even speculate here.
6.) Again, the water likely had much less salt in it. And 2.) Aren't there many fish that can live in both or that can adapt to a range of salinity?
7.) I can't speak to your specific facts. However, a few questions & comments come to mind when arguing for a 'local' as opposed to a global flood...
Why did Noah have to build an ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountain in that 100 years it took him to build the are, right?
Why did God send every kind of animal to the ark so they would excape extinction? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if particular ones had died.
Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a neaby mountain range.
The Bible said the water rose to 8 meters above the mountains. Tough to keep the flood 'local' in this scenario...
People not living in the 'locality' would have escaped God's judgement on sin. This contradicts the plain text.
God would have repeatedly broken his promise never to send such a flood again, because there have been many 'local' floods since then.
I'll take a wild stab at a couple of these...
1.) There is no way to speculate the elevation at which the dove found the olive branch...Were the waters still receding? Your question seems to imply that we would have to prove that olive trees grow at the top of mountains. I would say this is not necessarily true.
2.) Do you mean to say...'assuming it CAN'T live in a salty marsh...'? Maybe its possible that the tree was floating in a salty marsh (dormant) re-implanted itself on land as the water receded. My understanding is that olive trees are among the heartiest that exist. How mature did it have to be - does the Bible say the twig had 'leaves'? May it have just been a young twig with the beginnings of a blossom?
3.) I have no idea. We'll have to ask God.
4.) My understanding of predominant Creationist thought is that the water of the pre-flood era was likely much less saline than the oceans of today. The oceans have salt because of runoff, no? Why would a lake (that assumably is not fed by runoff) be salty? Ironically, measurements of the increasing salinity of the oceans date them to around 4500 years...
5.) I'm guessing because it wasn't warm enough...Honestly, I have no clue. Weren't much of the US & Canada covered by ice as recently as a few thousand years ago? I shouldn't even speculate here.
6.) Again, the water likely had much less salt in it. And 2.) Aren't there many fish that can live in both or that can adapt to a range of salinity?
7.) I can't speak to your specific facts. However, a few questions & comments come to mind when arguing for a 'local' as opposed to a global flood...
Why did Noah have to build an ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountain in that 100 years it took him to build the are, right?
Why did God send every kind of animal to the ark so they would excape extinction? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if particular ones had died.
Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a neaby mountain range.
The Bible said the water rose to 8 meters above the mountains. Tough to keep the flood 'local' in this scenario...
People not living in the 'locality' would have escaped God's judgement on sin. This contradicts the plain text.
God would have repeatedly broken his promise never to send such a flood again, because there have been many 'local' floods since then.
Re: More Ark questions....
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
I'll take a wild stab at a couple of these...
1.) There is no way to speculate the elevation at which the dove found the olive branch...Were the waters still receding? Your question seems to imply that we would have to prove that olive trees grow at the top of mountains. I would say this is not necessarily true.
That is what it implies to me. The dove was sent out a couple times and did not find a sign of land, meaning everything, including Ararat, was covered (BTW, that's probably more water than what's presently on the Earth as we know it to fill up to 12,000 ft higher than today...where'd it all go?) And if the first sign of land was an olive tree, I'd think we'd need to find the existence of some of those at very high elevations, if the Ark landed at the top of Ararat, as described.
2.) Do you mean to say...'assuming it CAN'T live in a salty marsh...'? Maybe its possible that the tree was floating in a salty marsh (dormant) re-implanted itself on land as the water receded. My understanding is that olive trees are among the heartiest that exist. How mature did it have to be - does the Bible say the twig had 'leaves'? May it have just been a young twig with the beginnings of a blossom?
Don't know of any freshwater plants that can live in salty waters. But I'm no olive tree biologist, either. I know if I pour ocean water on my houseplants, they won't like it.
3.) I have no idea. We'll have to ask God.
Maybe they swam....it would've taken quite a while for all the water to recede from 12,000 feet up....
4.) My understanding of predominant Creationist thought is that the water of the pre-flood era was likely much less saline than the oceans of today. The oceans have salt because of runoff, no? Why would a lake (that assumably is not fed by runoff) be salty? Ironically, measurements of the increasing salinity of the oceans date them to around 4500 years...
My understanding is that the oceans have been fairly constant in salinity for eons, per contiguous fossil records etc. I'd have to research 'why the ocean is salty' to be sure, but I can tell you that runoff is not believable for me, as most freshwater lakes arise from stream runoff etc. Freshwater bodies are inland; saltwater are (I think) from former ocean areas that have been cut off due to geologic movements and still may be fed by streams, but dont' have any way to lose the salt. The Salton Sea in SE California is one example.
5.) I'm guessing because it wasn't warm enough...Honestly, I have no clue. Weren't much of the US & Canada covered by ice as recently as a few thousand years ago? I shouldn't even speculate here.
Woulda been some damn cold water....
6.) Again, the water likely had much less salt in it. And 2.) Aren't there many fish that can live in both or that can adapt to a range of salinity?
There are species that can adapt to both environments; there are a lot of others that cannot. Plants, fish, and mammals.
7.) I can't speak to your specific facts. However, a few questions & comments come to mind when arguing for a 'local' as opposed to a global flood...
Why did Noah have to build an ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountain in that 100 years it took him to build the are, right?
Well, if the flood covered the mountain, no, he'd need the ark. I think some of the key point is that we're talking about thousands of square miles, so even in a major regional disaster, the only way you'd save yourself is thru some kind of boat.
Why did God send every kind of animal to the ark so they would escape extinction? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if particular ones had died.
Well, that's where I depart from the literal interpretation of Genesis. Even a major regional disaster, affecting most of the population at the time would seem like the 'whole world', especially if it was a populated and fertile area.
Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a neaby mountain range.
Sure, they could have. Most probably did, but that would not make for a convincing story on how he found land. Local bird populations during a freshwater-to seawater flood would have been decimated, though. Ecosystem changes would have been dramatic. Wouldn't we have seen a 'spread' of animal fossils about the globe since the flood, originating at Ararat, too? Why are there so many species local to the Americas that are not indigenous to Turkey? What about penguins? Did Noah take off in the Ark to go deposit them down at the end of the pole there? Were penguins mentioned as animals on the Ark? Are there any penguins in Europe leftover prior to 'migrating' to Antarctica? Polar bears?
The Bible said the water rose to 8 meters above the mountains. Tough to keep the flood 'local' in this scenario...
People not living in the 'locality' would have escaped God's judgement on sin. This contradicts the plain text.
Again, that's why I see this as more anecdotal than literal. There was a flood; people viewed it as God's punishment against them. And there is indeed archeological evidence around the Black Sea area, where much of the early civizations began, to substantiate the story in the Bible. That is truly fascinating to me; but only to the point that it is described through the eyes of a person 6000+ years ago, who did not know the Earth was round. If you 'knew' the Earth was flat, and there was a flood all around you as far as you could see, you'd naturally assume the whole world was flooded; and per your civilization and homeland, you'd be right.
God would have repeatedly broken his promise never to send such a flood again, because there have been many 'local' floods since then.
There have been all kinds of natural disasters since then.
One more thing perplexes me: rainbows. Did God change the way light refracts after the flood to allow them to occur? Did the laws of nature affecting how light is diffracted through water vapor prevent this from occuring beforehand, or is this just another nice explanation for a wonderful phenomenon that people saw and had no other explanation for? If God did change light refraction, why haven't we seen any other major physical laws as we know them change since? And what of the Aurora Borealis? No mention of that in the Bible? I'd think it would astound any Biblical author if they ever saw it; that is why I look at the Bible and the stories from it as 'regional', not 'worldwide' in their scope. Just my opinions/questions/observations. Take them w/ a grain of salt if you want, but I'm probably not going to change them anytime soon....
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
I'll take a wild stab at a couple of these...
1.) There is no way to speculate the elevation at which the dove found the olive branch...Were the waters still receding? Your question seems to imply that we would have to prove that olive trees grow at the top of mountains. I would say this is not necessarily true.
That is what it implies to me. The dove was sent out a couple times and did not find a sign of land, meaning everything, including Ararat, was covered (BTW, that's probably more water than what's presently on the Earth as we know it to fill up to 12,000 ft higher than today...where'd it all go?) And if the first sign of land was an olive tree, I'd think we'd need to find the existence of some of those at very high elevations, if the Ark landed at the top of Ararat, as described.
2.) Do you mean to say...'assuming it CAN'T live in a salty marsh...'? Maybe its possible that the tree was floating in a salty marsh (dormant) re-implanted itself on land as the water receded. My understanding is that olive trees are among the heartiest that exist. How mature did it have to be - does the Bible say the twig had 'leaves'? May it have just been a young twig with the beginnings of a blossom?
Don't know of any freshwater plants that can live in salty waters. But I'm no olive tree biologist, either. I know if I pour ocean water on my houseplants, they won't like it.
3.) I have no idea. We'll have to ask God.
Maybe they swam....it would've taken quite a while for all the water to recede from 12,000 feet up....
4.) My understanding of predominant Creationist thought is that the water of the pre-flood era was likely much less saline than the oceans of today. The oceans have salt because of runoff, no? Why would a lake (that assumably is not fed by runoff) be salty? Ironically, measurements of the increasing salinity of the oceans date them to around 4500 years...
My understanding is that the oceans have been fairly constant in salinity for eons, per contiguous fossil records etc. I'd have to research 'why the ocean is salty' to be sure, but I can tell you that runoff is not believable for me, as most freshwater lakes arise from stream runoff etc. Freshwater bodies are inland; saltwater are (I think) from former ocean areas that have been cut off due to geologic movements and still may be fed by streams, but dont' have any way to lose the salt. The Salton Sea in SE California is one example.
5.) I'm guessing because it wasn't warm enough...Honestly, I have no clue. Weren't much of the US & Canada covered by ice as recently as a few thousand years ago? I shouldn't even speculate here.
Woulda been some damn cold water....
6.) Again, the water likely had much less salt in it. And 2.) Aren't there many fish that can live in both or that can adapt to a range of salinity?
There are species that can adapt to both environments; there are a lot of others that cannot. Plants, fish, and mammals.
7.) I can't speak to your specific facts. However, a few questions & comments come to mind when arguing for a 'local' as opposed to a global flood...
Why did Noah have to build an ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountain in that 100 years it took him to build the are, right?
Well, if the flood covered the mountain, no, he'd need the ark. I think some of the key point is that we're talking about thousands of square miles, so even in a major regional disaster, the only way you'd save yourself is thru some kind of boat.
Why did God send every kind of animal to the ark so they would escape extinction? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if particular ones had died.
Well, that's where I depart from the literal interpretation of Genesis. Even a major regional disaster, affecting most of the population at the time would seem like the 'whole world', especially if it was a populated and fertile area.
Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a neaby mountain range.
Sure, they could have. Most probably did, but that would not make for a convincing story on how he found land. Local bird populations during a freshwater-to seawater flood would have been decimated, though. Ecosystem changes would have been dramatic. Wouldn't we have seen a 'spread' of animal fossils about the globe since the flood, originating at Ararat, too? Why are there so many species local to the Americas that are not indigenous to Turkey? What about penguins? Did Noah take off in the Ark to go deposit them down at the end of the pole there? Were penguins mentioned as animals on the Ark? Are there any penguins in Europe leftover prior to 'migrating' to Antarctica? Polar bears?
The Bible said the water rose to 8 meters above the mountains. Tough to keep the flood 'local' in this scenario...
People not living in the 'locality' would have escaped God's judgement on sin. This contradicts the plain text.
Again, that's why I see this as more anecdotal than literal. There was a flood; people viewed it as God's punishment against them. And there is indeed archeological evidence around the Black Sea area, where much of the early civizations began, to substantiate the story in the Bible. That is truly fascinating to me; but only to the point that it is described through the eyes of a person 6000+ years ago, who did not know the Earth was round. If you 'knew' the Earth was flat, and there was a flood all around you as far as you could see, you'd naturally assume the whole world was flooded; and per your civilization and homeland, you'd be right.
God would have repeatedly broken his promise never to send such a flood again, because there have been many 'local' floods since then.
There have been all kinds of natural disasters since then.
One more thing perplexes me: rainbows. Did God change the way light refracts after the flood to allow them to occur? Did the laws of nature affecting how light is diffracted through water vapor prevent this from occuring beforehand, or is this just another nice explanation for a wonderful phenomenon that people saw and had no other explanation for? If God did change light refraction, why haven't we seen any other major physical laws as we know them change since? And what of the Aurora Borealis? No mention of that in the Bible? I'd think it would astound any Biblical author if they ever saw it; that is why I look at the Bible and the stories from it as 'regional', not 'worldwide' in their scope. Just my opinions/questions/observations. Take them w/ a grain of salt if you want, but I'm probably not going to change them anytime soon....
Two............
But then, you knew that already.
Honestly, it's biblical stories like this one that label me a doubting Thomas.
Mike
But then, you knew that already.
Honestly, it's biblical stories like this one that label me a doubting Thomas.
Mike
Re: Two............
Yes but we need to remember that these are just that.... stories. Stories that the early writers used to convey some moral or idea. Not to mention that around the same period there were very similar stories from different cultures in the area which could mean that there was some regional disaster, but if there are other stories that means that other people must have lived too... I just take these early stories at face value , that they were a way for a scientificly lacking culture to explain what they didn't know.
Yes but we need to remember that these are just that.... stories. Stories that the early writers used to convey some moral or idea. Not to mention that around the same period there were very similar stories from different cultures in the area which could mean that there was some regional disaster, but if there are other stories that means that other people must have lived too... I just take these early stories at face value , that they were a way for a scientificly lacking culture to explain what they didn't know.
Re: Two............
Sure about that?
You expect there to be something too difficult or radical for the God of the universe to do?
This post was edited on 2/14 4:37 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Sure about that?
You expect there to be something too difficult or radical for the God of the universe to do?
This post was edited on 2/14 4:37 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Re: Two............
I would contend that believing the story to be exactly true and exactly how it happened and believing that God could do it are two different things.
Someone could believe that God definatly could have created the world in 6 days but they might not believe that is how it actually happened.
I would contend that believing the story to be exactly true and exactly how it happened and believing that God could do it are two different things.
Someone could believe that God definatly could have created the world in 6 days but they might not believe that is how it actually happened.
Similar threads
