We have lots of simple thread polls about religion, but here is one to seperate the middle ground from the, ahem, strong believers.

Do you believe the story of Noah's Ark... you know, world wide flood, big boat, 2 or 7 of every kind, giraffes looking out of the windows...

Erm... Honk! what poll?

Isn't there some people wanting to dig up a site where they believe the remains of the ark to be.

Isn't there some people wanting to dig up a site where they believe the remains of the ark to be.


Again? They've already found the remains of the true Ark at least four times, that I can remember. Surely by now they've realised that a wooden bout five thousand years old would have rotted into nothingness by now? :suspect:



Anyways, it's a loaded question. The tale of the Ark was never SUPPOSED to be believed. It's a parable. You might as well ask if people believe that Jesus' tale of the prodigal son really happened.

Isn't there some people wanting to dig up a site where they believe the remains of the ark to be.
Indeed there are, quite a few different groups of theists who've found a few bits of old bits of wood or a depression that they think looks like it may have been made by a boat on a bit of high ground somewhere in the middle east which they immediately declare to be the remains of the Ark.

As yet nothing has ever come of any of these discoveries, hardly surprising really as the Ark story is impossible for a huge number of reasons. For one how are sloths for example supposed to have got to the middle east from South America or Kakapos from New Zealand and then how did they get back again?

should we build noah's ark before global warming melts the caps?

As yet nothing has ever come of any of these discoveries, hardly surprising really as the Ark story is impossible for a huge number of reasons.

Apart from all the logistical, engineering, ecological and technical reasons, there is the bleedin' obvious issue that ancient Chinese, Egyptian and South American societies appeared to have missed the fact that there was a world wide flood... i.e there are unbroken historical records/evidence covering the periods when the world was meant to have been drowned.... :|

Anyways, it's a loaded question. The tale of the Ark was never SUPPOSED to be believed. It's a parable. You might as well ask if people believe that Jesus' tale of the prodigal son really happened.
Really, maybe you should explain this to all the millions of theists round the world who believe the Ark story to be literally true, I was certainly taught it as fact as a child.

Where in the bible does it say the Ark story is a parable?

should we build noah's ark before global warming melts the caps?
No, there's not enough water in the ice caps and glaciers to make such a thing necessary, which is of course yet another major problem with the Noah's Ark story.

Where in the bible does it say the Ark story is a parable?

Exactly - the old T is meant to be history - you cannot be selective over what is a parable - just because current science shows it to be gumph...

Otherwise (I would suggest) that Adam & Eve and the entire underpinning concept of original sin is a parable, as is the creation myth....

Which does not exactly leave much in the xian faith to rely on

... but if you think about the time that the stories were written ... what was the extent of the "known world" of the writers?

... and who says that the OT is "history"?
Very few members of the CofE would support that view.

Course I believe in Noah's Ark - It's one of the best pubs in Crookes!

Course I believe in Noah's Ark - It's one of the best pubs in Crookes!

They found one in Frecheville too.

But which of them is the real one with the giraffes and macaques and lions and bumblebees and stuff?

Of course I believe in it, I boarded it enroute to Rotterdam from Hull. I do believe that P&O bought Noah out!!

... but if you think about the time that the stories were written ... what was the extent of the "known world" of the writers?
.

Have a big prize - you have come to the big conclusion.

The bible is meant to be the word of god... given to humanity

In fact - it is all consistant with the level of knowledge of the writers - in every way... without ANY help given to them by the supernatural. The creation myth, adam & Eve etc are all attempts to explain a mysterious universe from the perspective of a bronze age culture.

Therefore - no evidence of divine inspiration. This puts the bible in the same box as greek gods, norse mythology and wombat worship - a purely man made construct

The bible is meant to be the word of god... given to humanity



This is NOT a concept believed by ALL followers of the various Christian faiths.

This is NOT a concept believed by ALL followers of the various Christian faiths.

Yes, but this is a modern issue - it is only since science, logic and morality have pointed out that a large proportion is bible is at best flawed, at worse morally bankrupt that there has been this selective reading

The trouble with scripture academia is that people interpret the bible (and the Quran etc) as saying what they WANT it to say, not what it actually says.

The bible has been read to support slavery, condone it or to give a moral toolkit on how to manage slave owning.

If the bible was *anything else* but just a bronze age human construct it would contain at least a few insights into reality... but it does not.

Any nice qoutes you can cite (like "treat others as you would like to be treated") was a lift from other philiosphies - esp the Greek.

I'm not saying that there are not nice bits of the bible - and some of it is good poetry, Im just saying it has nowt to do with god(s)

Parables - again...
I just think the whole book it came from was a big farce myself.
And the best bit is - when a bit is totally unbelievable ie: the ark, people in relgion can turn round and say, its not meant to believed, its a 'parable'

The Ark - and why its not to be believed
And this has been said to someone who works at our work who believes totally in it.. we threw questions at him until he got mad :)

1. If the ark was real - it would have to be the size, bigger than an aircraft carrier... and in those days - not a chance!

2. 2 of every species eh! - So how did they stop the animals eating each other?

3. They would need a massive food supply for all the animals - where would they keep it on the boat?

Answer those three - pretty please someone with a religious viewpoint.

PS: And also - for the people 'digging up the ark' - can we now stop the ridiculous cherade of trying to prove the bible correct, because it is just not going to happen.

Part of the problem lies in the period the Hebrew scriptures were written. Firstly they were written hundreds of years after the events they are supposed to depict. They are not just books of history, but of law, prophesy, poetry and wisdom. They are also written to try to establish a distinct identity for a group of people settling among people with other beliefs. Some theologians now believe that the Hebrews reinterpreted existing 'myths' of the Ancient Near East not primarily as a literal truth, but as a literary device to explain what they perceived as their relationship with God. What is important to understanding these scriptures is therefore more to do with how it distinguised the Hebrews relationship with God as distinct from the people around them. In the case of the Creation and Flood stories this is to do with the Jews as having a covenant with God. The current trend away from literal interpretation is probably in part due to the impact of scientific criticism but is almost certainly also due to the growth of literary criticism as a means of evaluating ancient text.

The current trend away from literal interpretation is probably in part due to the impact of scientific criticism but is almost certainly also due to the growth of literary criticism as a means of evaluating ancient text.

The trend to not see the bible as literal truth really took hold in the period 1830-1880. Paleys work on geology and Darwins on evolution rammed home the truth that -

1. The world was much, much older than the 6,000 years cited by bible interpretation

2. Humanity's position as the "centre" of existance didnt hold up - either historically, biologically or cosmologically.

3. This supported the literary analysis of the bible as being a series of mutually conflicting takes on history.

However, after the 1920's there was a revertion to "fundementalism" in some quarters (lead by the US) and this has continued to hold sway over a sizable chunk of the Muslim and Christian world.

Hence - the very current attacks on the teaching of natural sciences by evangelical churches - both in US and here (and even here in Sheffield).

The trend to not see the bible as literal truth really took hold in the period 1830-1880. Paleys work on geology and Darwins on evolution rammed home the truth that -

1. The world was much, much older than the 6,000 years cited by bible interpretation

2. Humanity's position as the "centre" of existance didnt hold up - either historically, biologically or cosmologically.

3. This supported the literary analysis of the bible as being a series of mutually conflicting takes on history.

However, after the 1920's there was a revertion to "fundementalism" in some quarters (lead by the US) and this has continued to hold sway over a sizable chunk of the Muslim and Christian world.

Hence - the very current attacks on the teaching of natural sciences by evangelical churches - both in US and here (and even here in Sheffield).

Sorry I was a little clumsy in my phrasing. I was not meaning to suggest that the trend against literalism was itself recent, more that among contemporary Christian theologians that reject literalism, they are as likely to be informed by modern Biblical literary criticism as by the original scientific developments which you cite.

Sorry I was a little clumsy in my phrasing. I was not meaning to suggest that the trend against literalism was itself recent, more that among contemporary Christian theologians that reject literalism, they are as likely to be informed by modern Biblical literary criticism as by the original scientific developments which you cite.

Well put, but my big beef about this issue is about the recent (say post mid 1970's) literalism movement. They are the best funded and most politically active arm of the christian movement - and it is only recently that the moderate/liberal wing of the church has started to take notice.

There is a good book from the US (I forget its title) which is written by a moderate bishop and presents an arguement along the lines of "fundamentalism is destroying christianity".

Honk!

We have lots of simple thread polls about religion, but here is one to seperate the middle ground from the, ahem, strong believers.

Do you believe the story of Noah's Ark... you know, world wide flood, big boat, 2 or 7 of every kind, giraffes looking out of the windows...you could say theres no smoke without fire-surely theres some truth somewhere but maybe its a bit chinese whispers and the real truth is hidden?
Noahs Ark is my boys favourite story:D
PS its intellegence not intelegence xx
SORRY intelligence! :)

you could say theres no smoke without fire-surely theres some truth somewhere but maybe its a bit chinese whispers and the real truth is hidden?
Noahs Ark is my boys favourite story:D
PS its intellegence not intelegence xx

or even intelligence :P

sorry, the thought of giraffes makes me come over all pedantic :rolleyes:

or even intelligence :P

sorry, the thought of giraffes makes me come over all pedantic :rolleyes:
hehe! true! pregnancy does things to ur braincells:hihi:

Parables - again...
I just think the whole book it came from was a big farce myself.
And the best bit is - when a bit is totally unbelievable ie: the ark, people in relgion can turn round and say, its not meant to believed, its a 'parable'


As, also, can people like me who are perfectly aware of how much garbage the Bible is, but know a bit about the history of the writing of it.

you could say theres no smoke without fire-surely theres some truth somewhere but maybe its a bit chinese whispers and the real truth is hidden?
Why? So far as I'm aware there's no need for 'truth' to exist for the universe to exist. There is of course though a well known tendency for humans to make up fanciful stories to comfort themselves in the face of their ignorance of and insignificance in the face of the universe.

Noahs Ark is my boys favourite story:D
:o What your boys favourite story is one of the murder of almost the entire human race including many millions of babies & young children by a murderously narcissistic, all powerful immaterial psychopath who lives in the sky?

Do you not find their fondness for tales of genocide rather worrying?

Course I believe in Noah's Ark - It's one of the best pubs in Crookes!

They serve a damn good pint or six in my experience - and as anybody from this part of the world knows Noah was starving after all that time on his boat so he pitched up in Crookes in search of a decent chippy.......

The trend to not see the bible as literal truth really took hold in the period 1830-1880. Paleys work on geology and Darwins on evolution rammed home the truth that -


Hence - the very current attacks on the teaching of natural sciences by evangelical churches - both in US and here (and even here in Sheffield).

Once again because Darwin says so Everybody believes him. I AM NOT DESCENDED FROM A MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again because Darwin says so Everybody believes him. I AM NOT DESCENDED FROM A MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!

errrr why do you share 93% of ape DNA and have a tail stump then?

taking it further back, why to you have 3 sets of non-code active DNA for haemoglobin - two of which are exactly the same as 99% of other land mammals?

etc

Once again because Darwin says so Everybody believes him. I AM NOT DESCENDED FROM A MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, it is not "because Darwin says so" it is because all of modern science says it is the only explanation

unless you want to believe we were made by magic

Why? So far as I'm aware there's no need for 'truth' to exist for the universe to exist. There is of course though a well known tendency for humans to make up fanciful stories to comfort themselves in the face of their ignorance of and insignificance in the face of the universe.


:o What your boys favourite story is one of the murder of almost the entire human race including many millions of babies & young children by a murderously narcissistic, all powerful immaterial psychopath who lives in the sky?

Do you not find their fondness for tales of genocide rather worrying?the smoke without fire statement was me probably relating to the fact that jesus has been proven to exist(whether he was a normal man or son of God) and so why not the other stories? dont lots of myths and legends stem from something?
and obviously in a childs book it doesnt go TOO much into God ridding his world of the nasty people that were in it at that time. Its a colourful book full of his favourite animals so at 18m he loves it.
:rolleyes:

the smoke without fire statement was me probably relating to the fact that jesus has been proven to exist(whether he was a normal man or son of God) and so why not the other stories? dont lots of myths and legends stem from something?:

The myth of Noah's Ark may have come from a local stories about a bad local flood that happened.

I just think about how my grandad talked about the bad winter of 1947... just think about that being passed down and exagerated thru generations. In a pre scientiffic and pre written-record society it is easy to see how things can get exagerated.

"In 1947 the entire world was covered in ice"

the smoke without fire statement was me probably relating to the fact that jesus has been proven to exist(whether he was a normal man or son of God) and so why not the other stories? dont lots of myths and legends stem from something?
First of all whilst on there most likely was a character called Jesus who got himself in crucified it has never been proven that there was, all the supposedly contemporary texts referring to Jesus has been shown to be forgeries.

Anyway so what if he did exist? There have been many people throughout history who most certainly existed who've claimed to be gods and prophets there existence alone only proves that there once lived somebody who made big claims that some people believed.

Mohamed, Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard for example all without a shadow of a doubt existed, does this mean that there is "some truth" to Islam, Mormonism and Scientology? Or does this argument only apply to the baseless faith you happen to believe in?

and obviously in a childs book it doesnt go TOO much into God ridding his world of the nasty people that were in it at that time.
And all those 'nasty' 18 month olds that your holy book says were murdered by your god, what 'nasty' things had they done?

Its a colourful book full of his favourite animals so at 18m he loves it.
:rolleyes:
Why on earth are you filling an innocent child's head with 'colourful' stories of genocide, don't you know any stories that don't involve the murder of millions of adults, children, babies and cute animals?

Apart from all the logistical, engineering, ecological and technical reasons, there is the bleedin' obvious issue that ancient Chinese, Egyptian and South American societies appeared to have missed the fact that there was a world wide flood... i.e there are unbroken historical records/evidence covering the periods when the world was meant to have been drowned.... :|

Not that I believe the Noah story, but in fact many cultures have ancient flood myths (the Bible story is pretty similar to the Mesopotamian story).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Flood#Other_flood_accounts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_%28mythology%29

Various suggestions for ancient flood events have been made but as the wikipedia article points out, a more prosaic explanation for the myths is that most ancient cultures grew up in fertile river deltas, or put another way, flood plains, so it's hardly surprising that flood stories would be passed down the generations.

This website argues that dinosaurs were on the ark!!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp


God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BasilRathbon
Course I believe in Noah's Ark - It's one of the best pubs in Crookes!

They found one in Frecheville too.

But which of them is the real one with the giraffes and macaques and lions and bumblebees and stuff?
certainly do believe in the noahs ark pub!

the one at intake is the bestest one... and is definately the one the animals... and thats just the bar staff... with the exception of one cause she is ACE!! :D

First of all whilst on there most likely was a character called Jesus who got himself in crucified it has never been proven that there was, all the supposedly contemporary texts referring to Jesus has been shown to be forgeries.

Anyway so what if he did exist? There have been many people throughout history who most certainly existed who've claimed to be gods and prophets there existence alone only proves that there once lived somebody who made big claims that some people believed.
.....?
as someone said above its most likely based on a true event that got exaggerated along the way-i dont see anything wrong with showing a child religion and over the years giving him access to other religions so he can decide what he thinks. I think there are many similiarities in the diff religions but the basis for all seems to be "be nice to eachother and treat one another fairly" etc...
I dont think you need to be so cruel in your statements-who says you are right?
And yes Jesus was proven to exist, hes in a variety of history books that arent even about religion or him and hes just mentioned in passing. so as i said b4, he existed-whether the son of God or not

If he took two of everything he must have taken a couple of Dinosaures too :huh:

as someone said above its most likely based on a true event that got exaggerated along the way-i dont see anything wrong with showing a child religion and over the years giving him access to other religions so he can decide what he thinks.
And of course you will give them equal access to all religions and world views that don't have a supernatural component and in no way try to pressure them to adopt your own :rolleyes:

I think there are many similiarities in the diff religions but the basis for all seems to be "be nice to eachother and treat one another fairly" etc...
Have you ever actually read the bible? I suggest you do so starting at Genesis and if you can hack it right the way through to Revelations and then try telling me with a straight face that the basis of Christianity is "be nice to eachother and treat one another fairly".

Failing that just take a cursory look at the history of religion, any one will do,

I dont think you need to be so cruel in your statements-who says you are right?
And yes Jesus was proven to exist, hes in a variety of history books that arent even about religion or him and hes just mentioned in passing. so as i said b4, he existed-whether the son of God or not
Which historical texts are these?

If he took two of everything he must have taken a couple of Dinosaures too :huh:
Actually he may have had to take more than just a pair atleast of the 'clean' animals:

Genesis 7:2-3 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

So if elephants, tyrannosaurus rexs and so forth were 'clean' Noah would have had to cram 14 of each species on the ark.

Of course the bible does contradict this 'take thee by sevens' stuff in Genesis 6:19 and 7:8, 9 & 15, but hey who said the 'word of god' had to be internally consistent? I mean just because he's apparently an all powerful all knowing super being that doesn't mean we should expect god not to flatly contradict himself every few sentences.

And of course you will give them equal access to all religions and world views that don't have a supernatural component and in no way try to pressure them to adopt your own :rolleyes:


Have you ever actually read the bible? I suggest you do so starting at Genesis and if you can hack it right the way through to Revelations and then try telling me with a straight face that the basis of Christianity is "be nice to eachother and treat one another fairly".

Failing that just take a cursory look at the history of religion, any one will do,


Which historical texts are these?

Jesus Christ taught love and forgiveness.

errrr why do you share 93% of ape DNA and have a tail stump then?

taking it further back, why to you have 3 sets of non-code active DNA for haemoglobin - two of which are exactly the same as 99% of other land mammals?

etc

What other building blocks are there?

Flood myths are common across the world - we have our own about Atlantis/Lyonesse. And we did have lost lands too, taken by the sea. Cardigan Bay was once a land mass, and there still is massive erosion on the east coast - there used to be a medieval city called Dunwich, complete with cathedral - it's just a farm now, the rest of it is under the sea, and in the time of the Abbess Hild, Whitby Abbey was possibly about half a mile inland. these are in the period of recorded history, so who knows what immense land masses we lost in prehistory? When the ice age ended and the seas rose and we were sundered from Europe?

But no, I don't believe Noah put all those animals on an Ark! However there could indeed have been massive floods at many points through history. Such things live on in the 'collective unconscious'. :)

If he took two of everything he must have taken a couple of Dinosaures too :huh:

If you give it a little thought you will realise the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish nation. As far as the Jews were concerned the Promised Land was their world. So when the Jewish chroniclers spoke of the world being flooded they did not mean the whole globe, neither would the flood have affected the migration of animals which is a non-argument put forward by atheists. Obviously Noah wasn't going to travel the seven seas and across the continents collecting every single species and the only animals Noah would have had in the Ark would have been local to him. The problem that faces us today is the way humankind has added its own take on what the Bible says and this is why there is so much misunderstanding, which is a shame really.

Flood myths are common across the world - we have our own about Atlantis/Lyonesse. And we did have lost lands too, taken by the sea. Cardigan Bay was once a land mass, and there still is massive erosion on the east coast - there used to be a medieval city called Dunwich, complete with cathedral - it's just a farm now, the rest of it is under the sea, and in the time of the Abbess Hild, Whitby Abbey was possibly about half a mile inland. these are in the period of recorded history, so who knows what immense land masses we lost in prehistory? When the ice age ended and the seas rose and we were sundered from Europe?

But no, I don't believe Noah put all those animals on an Ark! However there could indeed have been massive floods at many points through history. Such things live on in the 'collective unconscious'. :)

I think you put it very well Mathom. :thumbsup:

If you give it a little thought you will realise the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish nation. As far as the Jews were concerned the Promised Land was their world. So when the Jewish chroniclers spoke of the world being flooded they did not mean the whole globe, neither would the flood have affected the migration of animals which is a non-argument put forward by atheists. Obviously Noah wasn't going to travel the seven seas and across the continents collecting every single species and the only animals Noah would have had in the Ark would have been local to him. The problem that faces us today is the way humankind has added its own take on what the Bible says and this is why there is so much misunderstanding, which is a shame really.
So you agree that the old testament is word of a bunch of ignorant desert nomads rather than an all powerful and all knowing super being then?

So you agree that the old testament is word of a bunch of ignorant desert nomads rather than an all powerful and all knowing super being then?

Why do you have to twist everything? You know full well the Israelites were far from ignorant, they were building walled cities, they were experts in working gold and silver, they played the harp and other musical instruments, they built fine temples, there were the scribes, they were educated and the Old Testament is a contemporary record of their nation and their relationship with God.

The trend to not see the bible as literal truth really took hold in the period 1830-1880. Paleys work on geology and Darwins on evolution rammed home the truth that -

1. The world was much, much older than the 6,000 years cited by bible interpretation
2. Humanity's position as the "centre" of existance didnt hold up - either historically, biologically or cosmologically.

3. This supported the literary analysis of the bible as being a series of mutually conflicting takes on history.

However, after the 1920's there was a revertion to "fundementalism" in some quarters (lead by the US) and this has continued to hold sway over a sizable chunk of the Muslim and Christian world.

Hence - the very current attacks on the teaching of natural sciences by evangelical churches - both in US and here (and even here in Sheffield).

And this is where I am sorry to say, even Christians get it wrong. The 6000 years is approximately the beginning of Jewish history which began with Abraham but unfortunately people take it to be the beginning of the world, when in fact it was when the Jews began to record their history. You see how easy it is to make mistakes and the fundamentalist Christians I don't think realise what a huge mistake they are making. If only on this one point they would realise the world is billions of years old with writing and recorded history arriving much later, otherwise if writing were to go back to creation then monkeys would need to be able to write. The thing is, if we spent a little time in thought we would see how the Bible and everything in it falls so beautifully into place.

And of course you will give them equal access to all religions and world views that don't have a supernatural component and in no way try to pressure them to adopt your own :rolleyes:


Have you ever actually read the bible? I suggest you do so starting at Genesis and if you can hack it right the way through to Revelations and then try telling me with a straight face that the basis of Christianity is "be nice to eachother and treat one another fairly".

Failing that just take a cursory look at the history of religion, any one will do,


Which historical texts are these?do you actually read peoples inserts b4 jumping down throats? yes ill try and give him world knowledge-nursery and school do that anyway/ i find all religions interesting but believe in my own. im heavily involved thru work with people of diff religions so have great opportunity to learn bits about each. yes they are similiar -as i said BEFORE, its about being good people, good neighbours, good citizens.
Before you make ur comments maybe you should attend a few services of diff varieties. sometimes you have to look behind the words to get the meaning. Goodness me!!!!:rolleyes:

.......

Which historical texts are these?cant remember off hand-do you know every book u've read? im sure someone on here will know. we looked into it at college and it was also on a documentary-he was stated as a guy causing a stir and said to be doing strange things. proving a mystical man called jesus existed but not proving any miracles JUST that he was real

Jesus Christ taught love and forgiveness.

Why does writing in big red letters make you think anyone will suddenly turn around and think....oh you know he's right, now he wrote it in big red letters that's really changed my mind.

1. If the ark was real - it would have to be the size, bigger than an aircraft carrier... and in those days - not a chance!


Genesis 6:14-16 Gives the measurements of the Ark.
It was 3 storeys high.
And, apparently,almost as huge as the Titanic!
Specific instructions on how it was built and what materials it was made from are all in Genesis 6.
It took many years to build.
Perhaps some knowledgeable person would like to follow the exact instuctions given to Noah and try and build an Ark exactly the same!
Or even a scaled down model with calculations as to just how long it would have taken Noah and his 3 sons to build the Ark!

Why does writing in big red letters make you think anyone will suddenly turn around and think....oh you know he's right, now he wrote it in big red letters that's really changed my mind.

There you go. Getting it wrong again. As if that would make anyone change their mind.

I did it to emphasise the point and to attract your attention. Obviously it worked. :)

Genesis 6:14-16 Gives the measurements of the Ark.
It was 3 storeys high.
And, apparently,almost as huge as the Titanic!
Specific instructions on how it was built and what materials it was made from are all in Genesis 6.
It took many years to build.
Perhaps some knowledgeable person would like to follow the exact instuctions given to Noah and try and build an Ark exactly the same!
Or even a scaled down model with calculations as to just how long it would have taken Noah and his 3 sons to build the Ark!

I once did an experiment and took a cubit to be 18 inches and 2 cubits to be one long stride. Then I walked down Lindsay Avenue pacing it out and I was on Deerlands Avenue before I knew it. (I started from a little pre-fab school which has now gone) It was one heck of a big boat.

Why do you have to twist everything? You know full well the Israelites were far from ignorant, they were building walled cities, they were experts in working gold and silver, they played the harp and other musical instruments, they built fine temples, there were the scribes, they were educated and the Old Testament is a contemporary record of their nation and their relationship with God.
As usual the point sails way over your head, I was pointing out that in your post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1982175#post1982175) you acknowledged that the bible was written by people ignorant of amongst other things the size and form of the earth and the amount of water on it, rather than an all powerful and all knowing super being as you have claimed in the past.

Why does writing in big red letters make you think anyone will suddenly turn around and think....oh you know he's right, now he wrote it in big red letters that's really changed my mind.

Bear with the bloke, please, probedb, he's just realised that the facilities on SF let him emphasize his point.

He didn't have coloured crayons as a kid in Infant School. :hihi:

As usual the point sails way over your head, I was pointing out that in your post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1982175#post1982175) you acknowledged that the bible was written by people ignorant of amongst other things the size and form of the earth and the amount of water on it, rather than an all powerful and all knowing super being as you have claimed in the past.

I'm not sure if you are right. The twelve tribes of Israel spread to all corners of the world. But assuming you are correct and they were only aware of the Middle East (remember they were held captive in Egypt) then that supports the view they were recording a local flood which is perfectly feasible and adds weight to the possibility that the Bible account was recording something that actually happened and isn't the fairy tale some people would have us believe.

I'm not sure if you are right. The twelve tribes of Israel spread to all corners of the world. But assuming you are correct and they were only aware of the Middle East then that supports the view they were recording a local flood, thereby confirming the Bible account.

Considering the World consiste of a sphere, where are these corners you speak of? And at what time in history did they occupy all of them...? When the Old Testament was written? :confused:

I once did an experiment and took a cubit to be 18 inches and 2 cubits to be one long stride. Then I walked down Lindsay Avenue pacing it out and I was on Deerlands Avenue before I knew it. (I started from a little pre-fab school which has now gone) It was one heck of a big boat.
Aside form the many other absurdities of the Ark story wood simply isn't strong enough to build a boat that big, 100m meters is about the limit without makign extensive use of metals.

Considering the World consiste of a sphere, where are these corners you speak of? And at what time in history did they occupy all of them...? When the Old Testament was written? :confused:

The four corners of the earth.

Meaning:
The far ends of the world; all parts of the world. For example, Athletes came from the four corners of the earth to compete in the Olympics. This expression appeared in the Bible (Isaiah 11:12): "And gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Although the idea that the earth is a flat plane with actual corners has long been discarded, the term has survived.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-four-corners-of-the-earth

• If something goes to, or comes from, the four corners of the earth, it goes or comes absolutely everywhere.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/four+corners+of+the+earth.html

I'm not sure if you are right. The twelve tribes of Israel spread to all corners of the world.
They did? Are you actually claiming that there were Jews in New Zealand, South America, Australia, Greenland... in ancient times?

But assuming you are correct and they were only aware of the Middle East (remember they were held captive in Egypt) then that supports the view they were recording a local flood which is perfectly feasible and adds weight to the possibility that the Bible account was recording something that actually happened and isn't the fairy tale some people would have us believe.
So in your world the story of a 600 year old man who build an imposibly large wooden boat is 'perfectly feasible' :rolleyes:

Anyway claiming that the flood story is local rather than global makes no sense given Yahweh's stated reason's for having a flood in the first place:

Genesis 6:5-8 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

It plainly states in Genesis on a number of occasions that your God wanted to kill all of humanity but for Noah and his immediate family. As such it makes no sense to argue that Yahweh only murdered people in the middle east as this would leave evil babies all over the rest of the world.

They did? Are you actually claiming that there were Jews in New Zealand, South America, Australia, Greenland... in ancient times?


So in your world the story of a 600 year old man who build an imposibly large wooden boat is 'perfectly feasible' :rolleyes:

Anyway claiming that the flood story is local rather than global makes no sense given Yahweh's stated reason's for having a flood in the first place:

Genesis 6:5-8 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

It plainly states in Genesis on a number of occasions that your God wanted to kill all of humanity but for Noah and his immediate family. As such it makes no sense to argue that Yahweh only murdered people in the middle east as this would leave evil babies all over the rest of the world.
When you start going off like that and misquoting the Bible out of context I loose patience with you.

The top and bottom of Christianity is that it is peaceful and encourages us to love our neighbour and to care for one another as in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

What you so love to talk about is what happens when people disregard the teaching of Jesus Christ and turn to conflict, killing, murder and warfare as we can see across the world and even in our own cities and places like Northern Ireland where families are needlessly killed. The Bible is telling it like it is which adds to its authority. I so wish people would put all this aside and turn to the teaching of Jesus about whom it is written, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John chapter 3 verse 16.)

The four corners of the earth.

Meaning:
The far ends of the world; all parts of the world. For example, Athletes came from the four corners of the earth to compete in the Olympics. This expression appeared in the Bible (Isaiah 11:12): "And gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Although the idea that the earth is a flat plane with actual corners has long been discarded, the term has survived.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-four-corners-of-the-earth

• If something goes to, or comes from, the four corners of the earth, it goes or comes absolutely everywhere.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/four+corners+of+the+earth.html

Thank you Grahame, I shall sleep peacefully in my bed tonight knowing that Google can solve any personal problem I may encounter in my inadequate logic. :hihi:

Jesus talked about Noah at Matthew:24:37-39

When you start going off like that and misquoting the Bible out of context I loose patience with you.
Hypocrite (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1649427&postcount=609) anyway your outrageous hypocrisy aside in what way are the quotes out of context? Would you care to show quote them more fully explaining how the additional text changes the meaning of the quotes I used in my previous post.

The top and bottom of Christianity is that it is peaceful and encourages us to love our neighbour and to care for one another as in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

What you so love to talk about is what happens when people disregard the teaching of Jesus Christ and turn to conflict, killing, murder and warfare as we can see across the world and even in our own cities and places like Northern Ireland where families are needlessly killed. The Bible is telling it like it is which adds to its authority. I so wish people would put all this aside and turn to the teaching of Jesus about whom it is written, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John chapter 3 verse 16.)
Well that was relevant to the subject of the thread :rolleyes:

So in your world when the bible says that a 600 year old man build an impossibly large wooden boat and somehow persuaded a pair of every species in the world to go and live on the boat so they would drown when your 'loving god' murdered the vast majority of life on earth, that's 'telling it like it is' is it :loopy:

Hypocrite (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1649427&postcount=609) anyway your outrageous hypocrisy aside in what way are the quotes out of context? Would you care to show quote them more fully explaining how the additional text changes the meaning of the quotes I used in my previous post.


Well that was relevant to the subject of the thread :rolleyes:

So in your world when the bible says that a 600 year old man build an impossibly large wooden boat and somehow persuaded a pair of every species in the world to go and live on the boat so they would drown when your 'loving god' murdered the vast majority of life on earth, that's 'telling it like it is' is it :loopy:

I wish you would do as you tell other people to do and that is to read the Bible for yourself WITH UNDERSTANDING. Secondly please read and inwardly digest my posts as I have answered your points previously and am not going to endlessly repeat myself.

I take it you have read the highly detailed instructions regarding the construction of the ark? Nowhere does it speak of a bow or a stern. It gives the length and the width, in other words a raft. All it was required to do was float.

The Ark - and why its not to be believed

1. If the ark was real - it would have to be the size, bigger than an aircraft carrier... and in those days - not a chance!

2. 2 of every species eh! - So how did they stop the animals eating each other?

3. They would need a massive food supply for all the animals - where would they keep it on the boat?

And just imagine the copious amounts of feces on board!! I guess this is how the poop deck got its name.

Jesus talked about Noah at Matthew:24:37-39
That is a good point Gangan. Here is the quote in full. This is what happens in real life and the bible is telling it like it is. The passage is speaking about the second coming of Jesus Christ.

The Day and Hour Unknown
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And just imagine the copious amounts of feces on board!! I guess this is how the poop deck got its name.
Just kept chucking it over the side near where Belgium is now. :)

And just imagine the copious amounts of feces on board!! I guess this is how the poop deck got its name.

It was only for forty days and nights and even up until fairly recently people stabled their cattle in their own homes for the warmth they provided.:)

Years after the death of Jesus,a very learned man,the Apostle Paul,who persecuted Christians until he had a change of heart and became a Christian himself,talked about Noah and the Ark, at Hebrews;11:7

Years after the death of Jesus,a very learned man,the Apostle Paul,who persecuted Christians until he had a change of heart and became a Christian himself,talked about Noah and the Ark, at Hebrews;11:7

That is so very true Gangan. As the Apostle Paul said, "without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

By faith Noah, warned about what was not yet seen, with reverence built an ark for the salvation of his household. Through this he condemned the world and inherited the righteousness that comes through faith.

And it is by faith we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou will be saved.":)

As I understand it as a christian the old testemant was just a way of teaching about God. In other words a way of teaching unintelligent people the ways of God.
Not my words, just quoting!

When you start going off like that and misquoting the Bible out of context I loose patience with you.

The top and bottom of Christianity is that it is peaceful and encourages us to love our neighbour and to care for one another as in the parable of the Good Samaritan.


Why do you keep bringing Christianity into this? We're talking about the OLD Testament, much of which is known to be mythological and have no basis in fact.

Why do you keep bringing Christianity into this? We're talking about the OLD Testament, much of which is known to be mythological and have no basis in fact.

Let me tell you about the “Tell el-Amarna tablets” which comprised 359 cuneiform tablets, most of which were frank personal letters from Kings, governors, and officers located in cities and fortresses of Babylonia, Mitanni, Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine. They were written between 1400 and 1358BC. Some of them are now in the National Museums of England, France, Egypt, and Germany.

Most of the tablets were written in the cuneiform language of Babylonia and revealed the fact that for an extended period the various people of Western Asia used the cuneiform as their common language. Thus when Abraham came to Syria, Canaan and Egypt, he readily conversed with the various people. (And you say the Bible has no foundation in fact. Excuse me. :) )

The tablets describe Palestine and the surrounding countries as being in a state of turmoil within, and as being attacked from without. They describe the beginning of the Hebrew conquest on Canaan under Joshua, giving us the story of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan which we can read about in the Bible. These tablets provide us with the account from the enemy’s perspective. They were written by people from other lands and confirm the Bible account. (And you say the Bible has no foundation in fact. Excuse me. :) )

As has already been said, the Old Testament is the history of the Hebrew Nation and as dynamicdebz said “As I understand it as a Christian the Old Testament was just a way of teaching about God.”

This is correct and if you want further evidence that the Bible was written by people who were God inspired then look no further than the prophetic words of the Old Testament which were fulfilled many years later.

The Old Testament tells us: -

The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger. (Isaiah 40:3)

The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2) says:

The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. (Genesis 49:10)

The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a colt. (Zechariah 9:9)

The Messiah would be betrayed by a friend. (Psalms 41:9)

The Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12)

The Messiah would be spit upon and beaten. (Isaiah 50:6)

The Messiah would be wounded by His enemies. (Isaiah 53:5)

The Messiah would be silent before His accusers. (Isaiah 53:7)

The Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced. (Psalm 22:16)

The prophecy of Jesus having his hands and feet pierced was written hundreds of years before the Roman Empire invented crucifixion as a form of execution.

Who would believe the Messiah would ride into a great city on the back of a donkey? Who else would be silent and not speak a word in his own defence, after being beaten, spit upon, and having the hairs of his beard plucked from his cheeks?
http://www.konig.org/messianic.htm

Yet all these things happened. At the time of writing they appeared highly unlikely making their fulfilment all the more wonderful. (Please don't tell me the Bible has no basis in fact :)) When combined with archaeological evidence, there is no other option than to believe the holy word of God.

Why do you keep bringing Christianity into this? We're talking about the OLD Testament, much of which is known to be mythological and have no basis in fact.

Actually once you use the term "Old Testament", you have by definition introduced Christianity. The phrase is a Christian term to describe a particular canon of books which have their origin in Hebrew scriptures. If you wish to avoid introducing "Christianity" then you are better to use a different phrase like "Hebrew scriptures" (bearing in mind that not all books in the OT are part of the Jewish canon).

Even so the original post specified the bible - again a Christian canon.

Slightly pedantic on my part, but relevant nevertheless.

and if you want further evidence that the Bible was written by people who were God inspired then look no further than the prophetic words of the Old Testament which were fulfilled many years later.

The Old Testament tells us: -

The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger. (Isaiah 40:3)

The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2) says:

The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. (Genesis 49:10)

The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a colt. (Zechariah 9:9)

The Messiah would be betrayed by a friend. (Psalms 41:9)

The Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver. (Zechariah 11:12)

The Messiah would be spit upon and beaten. (Isaiah 50:6)

The Messiah would be wounded by His enemies. (Isaiah 53:5)

The Messiah would be silent before His accusers. (Isaiah 53:7)

The Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced. (Psalm 22:16)

The prophecy of Jesus having his hands and feet pierced was written hundreds of years before the Roman Empire invented crucifixion as a form of execution.



This might equally mean that the gospel writers knew their scripture very well. Also the Roman form of crucifixion did not entail piercing of the hands and feet. The description of Christ's crucifixion is to my knowledge the only recorded exception - again written by people who were aware of the "prophecy".

I wish you would do as you tell other people to do and that is to read the Bible for yourself WITH UNDERSTANDING. Secondly please read and inwardly digest my posts as I have answered your points previously and am not going to endlessly repeat myself.
Really so when did you deal with the bible claiming noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood? The fact that the Bible specifically talks of the earth not a region being flooded and that Yahweh says he wants to wipe out all life on earth not just that in a small region?

I take it you have read the highly detailed instructions regarding the construction of the ark? Nowhere does it speak of a bow or a stern. It gives the length and the width, in other words a raft. All it was required to do was float.
Unlike you I have read the instructions (though they're hardly 'highly detailed) for the ark and they mentions length, breadth and height

Genesis 6:14-16 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

So not only does the bible have Yahweh specify a height for the Ark he also commands:

'rooms shalt thou make in the ark' note in the ark not on
'shalt pitch it within and without with pitch' rafts don't have a 'within' to pitch boats do
'the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof' rafts don't have sides you can set doors into, boat's on the other hand...

On top of all this Yahweh specifically tells Noah to build an 'Ark' meaning a 'A chest, coffer, basket, or similar receptacle' which is the same meaning used
for Ark throughout the rest of the bible. Given all this it is patently absurd to claim that the Ark described in Genesis could possibly have been a raft.

So Genesis has a 600 year old man making an impossibly large wooden boat, which still wouldn't have been anywhere near big enough for the task specified, how is this 'telling it like it is'?

This might equally mean that the gospel writers knew their scripture very well. Also the Roman form of crucifixion did not entail piercing of the hands and feet. The description of Christ's crucifixion is to my knowledge the only recorded exception - again written by people who were aware of the "prophecy".

Crucifixion

"Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution, where the victim was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.

This form of execution was widely practiced in the Roman Empire, though similar methods were invented in the ancient culture of Persia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

<snip off topic waffle about prophecy not Noah>
It's hardly very proof of anything that people aware of ancient religious texts would claim that their messiah fulfilled assorted 'prophecies' in them when they were concocting his lifestory.

On the subject of Prophecy though:

Matthew 24:29-34 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Revelations 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelations 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

So the New Testament prophecied that the world would end during:
1. The lifetime of those who heard Jesus speak.
2. The lifetime of the authors of the new testament.
3. Soon

Yet 2000 years on we're still here and so far as I can tell the world hasn't ended.

Crucifixion

"Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution, where the victim was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.

This form of execution was widely practiced in the Roman Empire, though similar methods were invented in the ancient culture of Persia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Thankyou for this link which provides an interesting discussion of the plausibility of whether indeed the Romans did put nails through the hands and feet (as opposed to the wrists, and use of a foot rest to support the body weight).

Thankyou for this link which provides an interesting discussion of the plausibility of whether indeed the Romans did put nails through the hands and feet (as opposed to the wrists, and use of a foot rest to support the body weight).

I was told that nailing the feet to the cross was particularly horrible as drawing the knees up to the chest would provide some temporary relief caused by the stretching of the stomach, but if the feet were nailed to the cross the sufferer would not be able to do this.

It's hardly very proof of anything that people aware of ancient religious texts would claim that their messiah fulfilled assorted 'prophecies' in them when they were concocting his lifestory.

On the subject of Prophecy though:

Matthew 24:29-34 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Revelations 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelations 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

So the New Testament prophecied that the world would end during:
1. The lifetime of those who heard Jesus speak.
2. The lifetime of the authors of the new testament.
3. Soon

Yet 2000 years on we're still here and so far as I can tell the world hasn't ended.
The time hasn't come yet.

Hypocrite (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1649427&postcount=609) anyway your outrageous hypocrisy aside in what way are the quotes out of context? Would you care to show quote them more fully explaining how the additional text changes the meaning of the quotes I used in my previous post.


Well that was relevant to the subject of the thread :rolleyes:

So in your world when the bible says that a 600 year old man build an impossibly large wooden boat and somehow persuaded a pair of every species in the world to go and live on the boat so they would drown when your 'loving god' murdered the vast majority of life on earth, that's 'telling it like it is' is it :loopy:
My own view is that Hebrew history is marked by a handful of notable people, whose influence lasted many years, thus providing mile-stones or landmarks in early history with each epoch lasting many years and in the case of Noah his dynasty and that of his family lasted about 600 years before it died.

The time hasn't come yet.
That's rather my point, Jesus said those things would happen within a 'generation' 2000 years ago, as such he made a false prophecy and is by definition a false prophet.

My own view is that Hebrew history is marked by a handful of notable people, whose influence lasted many years, thus providing mile-stones or landmarks in early history with each epoch lasting many years and in the case of Noah his dynasty and that of his family lasted about 600 years before it died.
Yet again you are ignoring the plain meaning of the text in the bible:

Exodus 9:28-29 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

It plainly states that after the flood Noah lived for an additional 350 years not that his descendants did, yet again just as with your false claims (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1985910#post1985910) that the bible doesn't give a height for the Ark your arguments blatantly contradict the book you claim to be the 'word of god'.

That's rather my point, Jesus said those things would happen within a 'generation' 2000 years ago, as such he made a false prophecy and is by definition a false prophet.

No plekhanov. What you are thinking about is the Holy Spirit, and true to his word it happened.

No plekhanov. What you are thinking about is the Holy Spirit, and true to his word it happened.

Try actually reading the prophecy, huh? He did NOT predict the coming of the Holy Spirit; he predicted the Sun and Moon going dark, the heavens collapsing, all the stars falling to earth, the angels sounding trumpets and assorted other mayhem, WITHIN A GENERATION.

None of it's happened yet. He was wrong.

No plekhanov. What you are thinking about is the Holy Spirit, and true to his word it happened.
Really please do explain how all this:

Matthew 24:29-34 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Simply means that nothing perceptible will happen?

Also how about you address all the 'but the end of all things is at hand', 'the coming of the Lord draweth nigh' and 'the time is short' stuff? How is 2000 years 'short'?

Yet again you are ignoring the plain meaning of the text in the bible:

Exodus 9:28-29 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

It plainly states that after the flood Noah lived for an additional 350 years not that his descendants did, yet again just as with your false claims (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1985910#post1985910) that the bible doesn't give a height for the Ark your arguments blatantly contradict the book you claim to be the 'word of god'.
I have to hand it to you for taking the Bible so literally. You ought to join forces with the Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible was written about real people who were living in the real world and if something doesnt make sense to you, ask yourself if perhaps you have misunderstood. It is easy to do and even Christians think Adam was the first man when he was the leader, i.e. "the first man". So please try to look for the explanation.

I have to hand it to you for taking the Bible so literally. You ought to join forces with the Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible was written about real people who were living in the real world and if something doesnt make sense to you, ask yourself if perhaps you have misunderstood. It is easy to do and even Christians think Adam was the first man when he was the leader, i.e. "the first man". So please try to look for the explanation.


Finally, you admit that the bible is full of falsehoods. Can we draw this discussion to a close now?

Really please do explain how all this:

Matthew 24:29-34 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Simply means that nothing perceptible will happen?

Also how about you address all the 'but the end of all things is at hand', 'the coming of the Lord draweth nigh' and 'the time is short' stuff? How is 2000 years 'short'?That is when Jesus will come again, you are confusing the two events.

That is when Jesus will come again, you are confusing the two events.

There aren't two events. There is a single prediction. A list of things that will happen; and a time. The time passed almost two thousand years ago, and the things haven't happened; ergo, Jesus was a false prophet.

Finally, you admit that the bible is full of falsehoods. Can we draw this discussion to a close now?

I was saying the modern world is full of people who fail to understand ancient text.

I have to hand it to you for taking the Bible so literally. You ought to join forces with the Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible was written about real people who were living in the real world and if something doesnt make sense to you, ask yourself if perhaps you have misunderstood. It is easy to do and even Christians think Adam was the first man when he was the leader, i.e. "the first man". So please try to look for the explanation.
What's to misunderstand in the sentence:

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

That seems very straightforward and unambiguous to me, on what possible grounds do you claim that means anything but Noah lived for 950 years?

That is when Jesus will come again, you are confusing the two events.
Did you miss the part where Jesus says:

'This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled'

the bible states Jesus said that those events would happen within a generation ie. within about 30 years, 2000 years on they still haven't happened. As such he made a false prophecy and is a false prophet.

There aren't two events. There is a single prediction. A list of things that will happen; and a time. The time passed almost two thousand years ago, and the things haven't happened; ergo, Jesus was a false prophet.
You are wrong Heyesey. The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. The end of the world hasn't happened yet, at least I don't think it has, and 2000 years compared to eternity is nothing. The Bible is turning out to be more accurate than we ever imagined and for non-Christian it must be very frightening?

I was saying the modern world is full of people who fail to understand ancient text.

I take it you're referring to yourself, since you're the one who keeps babbling on about some Holy Meaning to what is known and proven to be a collection of mythological tales.

You are wrong Heyesey.

No I'm not.

The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Not relevant to the argument. Try actually READING what you're posting about, please? We're discussing the prediction of the end of the world, made by Jesus, and prophesied to occur, quite specifically, before all of the disciples were dead.

[quote] The end of the world hasn't happened yet,/QUOTE]

which is exactly the point. Jesus made a false prophecy.

Did you miss the part where Jesus says:

'This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled'

the bible states Jesus said that those events would happen within a generation ie. within about 30 years, 2000 years on they still haven't happened. As such he made a false prophecy and is a false prophet.

Lets get it right shall we. This is what happened. Mat 24:1 “Jesus left and was going away from the Temple when his disciples came to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Yes," he said, "you may well look at all these. I tell you this: not a single stone here will be left in its place; every one of them will be thrown down."

He is speaking about the temple in Jerusalem which was destroyed in AD70.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

Further evidence of events proving the accuracy of the Bible. Keep going plek you are doing me a favour.

Lets get it right shall we. This is what happened. Mat 24:1 “Jesus left and was going away from the Temple when his disciples came to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Yes," he said, "you may well look at all these. I tell you this: not a single stone here will be left in its place; every one of them will be thrown down."

He is speaking about the temple in Jerusalem which was destroyed in AD70.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

Further evidence of events proving the accuracy of the Bible. Keep going plek you are doing me a favour.
And you have the gall to accuse others of selective quoting :rolleyes:

In Matthew 24:2 Jesus states that the temple will be destroyed over the following 31 verses he goes on to list a series of other events and then in Matthew 24:34 states Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Do you see the word 'all' there Grahame? Note 'all' not 'some' or 'one' but 'ALL'. That means that Jesus was claiming all the events he listed on the preceding 32 verses were going to happen within a generation not just one of them. They obviously haven't 'all' happened therefore Jesus was a false prophet.

And you have the gall to accuse others of selective quoting :rolleyes:

In Matthew 24:2 Jesus states that the temple will be destroyed over the following 31 verses he goes on to list a series of other events and then in Matthew 24:34 states Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Do you see the word 'all' there Grahame? Note 'all' not 'some' or 'one' but 'ALL'. That means that Jesus was claiming all the events he listed on the preceding 32 verses were going to happen within a generation not just one of them. They obviously haven't 'all' happened therefore Jesus was a false prophet.

Dear Plek. You are quoting the Bible correctly in this instance, and as you say this generation shall not pass away till ALL these things are fulfilled. The only thing is that not everything in the list has been fulfilled yet.

As for the Greek word (agenealogetos [a)genealo/ghtov] ," the primary definition is, "race, kind, family, stock, breed)." (So all lexicons.)

The word is used in this sense because none of "these things," i.e. the world-wide preaching of the kingdom, the great tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The promise is, therefore, that the generation--nation, or family of Israel-- will be preserved unto "these things"; proving the Bible true yet again and we can see that God has fulfilled his promise to the Israel nation even till the present day.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation (race or people) shall not pass away, till ALL these things be accomplished.

It was only for forty days and nights and even up until fairly recently people stabled their cattle in their own homes for the warmth they provided.:)

the book of Genesis (chapters 7/8/9) describe the flood:-
the rains were 40 days and nights, the flooding lasted about a year. (says Genesis 8)


the flood started (genesis 7 , verse 11) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

(snippitty )

1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

the book of Genesis (chapters 7/8/9) describe the flood:-
the rains were 40 days and nights, the flooding lasted about a year. (says Genesis 8)


(snippitty )

Thank you PT. You are correct. I was thinking of the rain lasting 40 days:thumbsup:

What I like is the detail the Bible goes into, I can imagine the scribes wanting to make an accurate report and being so careful to include everything.

Dear Plek. You are quoting the Bible correctly in this instance, and as you say this generation shall not pass away till ALL these things are fulfilled. The only thing is that not everything in the list has been fulfilled yet.

As for the Greek word (agenealogetos [a)genealo/ghtov] ," the primary definition is, "race, kind, family, stock, breed)." (So all lexicons.)

The word is used in this sense because none of "these things," i.e. the world-wide preaching of the kingdom, the great tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The promise is, therefore, that the generation--nation, or family of Israel-- will be preserved unto "these things"; proving the Bible true yet again and we can see that God has fulfilled his promise to the Israel nation even till the present day.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/srn/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation (race or people) shall not pass away, till ALL these things be accomplished.
Your source is incorrect/lying "race, kind, family, stock, breed)" is the definition of 'genos' not 'genea' and 'genos' isn't the word used in Matthew 24:34.

If the word used in Matthew 24:34 really means 'race' then why do the English translations of the bible say 'generation' rather than 'race' 'nation' or whatever?

Jesus makes a false prophecy in Matthew 24:34 and he is therefore a false prophet.

Thank you PT. You are correct. I was thinking of the rain lasting 40 days:thumbsup:

What I like is the detail the Bible goes into, I can imagine the scribes wanting to make an accurate report and being so careful to include it all.
You mean like how the scribes 'accurately' record Noah as dying at the age of 950 in the next chapter :hihi:

A few hours ago (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1986953&postcount=85) you were arguing that the those who wrote the Bible were so imprecise that when they wrote 'Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years' they actually meant 'Noah's extended family'. Yet now you are praising these same scribes for being 'careful' and 'accurate'.

I know you have no problem contradicting reality but can't you atleast try to keep your arguments internally coherent within a single thread?

Your source is incorrect/lying "race, kind, family, stock, breed)" is the definition of 'genos' not 'genea' and 'genos' isn't the word used in Matthew 24:34.

If the word used in Matthew 24:34 really means 'race' then why do the English translations of the bible say 'generation' rather than 'race' 'nation' or whatever?

Jesus makes a false prophecy in Matthew 24:34 and he is therefore a false prophet.From another source genea: -

G1074
γενεά
genea
ghen-eh-ah'
From a generation: - age, generation, nation, time.

You mean like how the scribes 'accurately' record Noah as dying at the age of 950 in the next chapter :hihi:

A few hours ago (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1986953&postcount=85) you were arguing that the those who wrote the Bible were so imprecise that when they wrote 'Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years' they actually meant 'Noah's extended family'. Yet now you are praising these same scribes for being 'careful' and 'accurate'.

I know you have no problem contradicting reality but can't you atleast try to keep your arguments internally coherent within a single thread?
The last time this debate came up (ages ago),- IE the age of Noah - Grahame argued that when the scribes mentioned years they were really refering to months. In other words, 600 years equated to 600 months and meant 50 years. :huh: :huh: :huh:

Yes, that's what flumoxed me. The sheer accuracy of it all.:confused: :confused:

You mean like how the scribes 'accurately' record Noah as dying at the age of 950 in the next chapter :hihi:

A few hours ago (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1986953&postcount=85) you were arguing that the those who wrote the Bible were so imprecise that when they wrote 'Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years' they actually meant 'Noah's extended family'. Yet now you are praising these same scribes for being 'careful' and 'accurate'.

I know you have no problem contradicting reality but can't you atleast try to keep your arguments internally coherent within a single thread?

The English translation of the bible is weighted heavily towards the 'miraculous'. For 'Red Sea', read 'Sea of Reeds'. Apparently, 'Red' and 'Reeds' can be translated the same, but a bloke able to part a whole sea rather than simply part reeds carries more weight in the 'wonder of it all' department.

You mean like how the scribes 'accurately' record Noah as dying at the age of 950 in the next chapter :hihi:

A few hours ago (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1986953&postcount=85) you were arguing that the those who wrote the Bible were so imprecise that when they wrote 'Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years' they actually meant 'Noah's extended family'. Yet now you are praising these same scribes for being 'careful' and 'accurate'.

I know you have no problem contradicting reality but can't you atleast try to keep your arguments internally coherent within a single thread?

The one consistent factor running through the thread is the misreading or the misunderstanding of scripture which I have been guilty of and I'm sure many others also, the redeeming factor is to acknowledge our mistakes as I have with PT while at the same time learning from them and hopefully we will get there in the end.

The last time this debate came up (ages ago),- IE the age of Noah - Grahame argued that when the scribes mentioned years they were really refering to months. In other words, 600 years equated to 600 months and meant 50 years. :huh: :huh: :huh:

Yes, that's what flumoxed me. The sheer accuracy of it all.:confused: :confused:

It was lunar months, however you are right and I admit I am still learning.:)

Yet again you are ignoring the plain meaning of the text in the bible:

Exodus 9:28-29 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

It plainly states that after the flood Noah lived for an additional 350 years not that his descendants

The creation account in Genesis 1:6,7 says that at some stage the earth was covered by water.
Then it says;"God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."So God made the vault,and separated the water under the vault from the water above it...and God called the VAULT heaven."

So this would be a vast canopy of water over the earth,protecting all life from the harmful rays of the sun.This would mean that in the Pre- Flood years mans life span would probably be longer than it is today.

(And isn"t it true that man is seeking a way of extending our lives?They see no reason why we should not be able to live healthily for hundreds of years,if only they could solve the problem of why the body ages.)

Back to the Flood.
Genesis 2:4-6 says,"The Lord God had sent no rain on the earth......A flood used to rise out of the earth and water all the surface of the ground."
So, up to Noah"s day no-one had ever seen rain.The sunlight and moonlight filtered through the water canopy.The stars were not visible at that time.

As the Genesis account says, it took 40 days and nights of torrential rain for the vast water canopy to empty itself on the earth.
It is noticeable that after the Flood mans life-span was shortened.Very rarely does anyone reach the age of 120which is the age God said man would reach.

I have to ask Gangan, is that last post a joke or do you really mean and believe that?

Its not a joke!
We all have to work out and decide for ourselves what we believe.But,we can"t do that unless we first do what Jesus said,which is "Seek and you will find.Knock and the door will be opened to you."
That"s what I have tried to do all my life.
Yet I know there is so much more to learn!
And so much we-you..me..all mankind.. have forgotten.

From another source genea: -

G1074
γενεά
genea
ghen-eh-ah'
From a generation: - age, generation, nation, time.
And the reason you have failed to link to this source is?

And the reason you have failed to link to this source is?

It is from Young's Concordance on my bookshelves.

The creation account in Genesis 1:6,7 says that at some stage the earth was covered by water.
Then it says;"God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."So God made the vault,and separated the water under the vault from the water above it...and God called the VAULT heaven."
This is just more evidence that whoever wrote Genesis was completely ignorant of the shape of the world and it's natural history, it's clear from this nonsense about 'vaults' that the author believed the earth to be flat (a belief that's implied at numerous other points in the bible) which is obviously isn't.

So this would be a vast canopy of water over the earth,protecting all life from the harmful rays of the sun.This would mean that in the Pre- Flood years mans life span would probably be longer than it is today.
Actually it would mean that men couldn't live at all as a body of water magically suspended above the earth would absorb far too much radiation from the sun, depriving life on earth or it's energy source. Without sunlight plant's wouldn't be able to photosynthesise meaning that humans (and all other animals) would starve to death.

Anyway on what grounds do you claim that peoples lifespans would be extended up to nearly 1000 years simply by not being exposed to the suns rays?

Are you not aware that we actually need to be exposed to sun light to produce vitamin D without which people develop rickets, osteoporosis and other bone diseases?

(And isn"t it true that man is seeking a way of extending our lives?They see no reason why we should not be able to live healthily for hundreds of years,if only they could solve the problem of why the body ages.)
This makes absolutely no sense, the obvious fact that people want to live longer doesn't mean that claims that Noah lived to be 950 years old are remotely credible.

Back to the Flood.
Genesis 2:4-6 says,"The Lord God had sent no rain on the earth......A flood used to rise out of the earth and water all the surface of the ground."
So, up to Noah"s day no-one had ever seen rain.The sunlight and moonlight filtered through the water canopy.The stars were not visible at that time.
This is patently absurd in any number of ways, aside from the already mentioned problem of this canopy of water blotting out the sun meaning plants couldn't grow & animals would have nothing to eat, Genesis 2 mentions a number of rivers, if you have rivers you have seas & lakes and those inevitably result in precipitation.

Also whilst you're reading Genesis 2 go back a chapter and read Genesis 1 and compare the orders of creation given in each and you'll see that not only does Genesis serially contradict reality it also contradicts it self.

As the Genesis account says, it took 40 days and nights of torrential rain for the vast water canopy to empty itself on the earth.
And where has all this water gone today? Maybe you hadn't noticed but there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the earth's mountains.

It is noticeable that after the Flood mans life-span was shortened.Very rarely does anyone reach the age of 120which is the age God said man would reach.
Which flood is this? There's no evidence in the geological or fossil record of a global flood and there isn't even enough water on the planet for such a flood to have happened. There's considerable evidence in amongst other things the distribution of species on the earth that such a flood could not have happened.

As has already been established in this thread the flood story consists almost entirely of absurdities; impossibly long lived men building an impossibly large wooden boat (which still wouldn't have been anywhere near large enough for it's purpose), performing the impossible task of somehow collecting samples of all the millions of species from all over the earth... the list just goes on and on.

Adding further absurdities such as your bizarre claim that people who stay out the sun could live to be 900+ hardly makes the story any more feasible.

What you say plekhanov is made up. It is out of your head. You are prejudiced against the Bible and Christianity but your efforts are worthless. The Bible is always right and you are wrong.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

To God be the glory.

If you must know it was the followers of Darwin who said the earth was flat in an effort to discredit Christianity and like every false cult their errors will come back to haunt them the same as your malicious slander of Holy Scripture which has withstood attack from all quarters down through the generations. Many of the critics have passed away while new generations come and like others before, you are doomed to failure. The Bible is the inspired word of God who reigns supreme and like the head which is above the other members of the body, so Christ is the head of the church, he is above all and will always be omnipotent. It is his world and the Bible is his word and nothing can come between.

What you say plekhanov is made up. It is out of your head.
Really, so you deny that for example we need sunlight to produce vitamin D without which we contract bone diseases and that plants need sunlight to photosynthesize?

You are prejudiced against the Bible and Christianity
In what way is it prejudiced to point out that the bible contradicts itself and reality?

but your efforts are worthless. The Bible is always right
:huh: In this thread you have argued that the bible was wrong to claim that amongst other things there was a global flood and Noah didn't live to an age of 950, and have conceded that the world hasn't ended.

This being the case how can you possibly now claim that "the Bible is always right"?

and you are wrong.
Why, because you say so?

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Why have you just posted yet another example of the bible claiming that the earth is flat? This hardly helps your absurd claim that "the Bible is always right" :hihi:

...The Bible is always right and you are wrong.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

If you must know it was the followers of Darwin who said the earth was flat in an effort to discredit Christianity. And like every false cult their errors will come back to haunt them...

This passage clearly shows the writers of the bible believed the earth was flat - a circle. Referring to the sky as a curtain or like tent walls implies something surrounding a flat area. It would be hard to put curtains up enclosing a sphere after all.

Please tell us who these flat earth followers of Darwin were, Darwin himself would have laughed at them.

Au contraire - The errors of the bible and its false prophesy are now haunting the christian cult, and its time will soon be at hand, with that and the other religions gone we can get on with growing up as a species.

Flat-Earth HeyDay Came with Darwin
The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says. Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."

Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.

But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science.

The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

The earth was determined to be a sphere (not a circle) by Eratosthenes ~300BC and this was common knowledge at the time the new testament was written, and they still called it a circle you could put curtains or tent walls around!

Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus started the misconception that people before Columbus thought the earth was flat, it was published in 1828. Darwin hammered his particular nail into religion's coffin over 30 years later! There is nothing to see here, move along…!

The earth was determined to be a sphere (not a circle) by Eratosthenes ~300BC and this was common knowledge at the time the new testament was written, and they still called it a circle you could put curtains or tent walls around!

Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus started the misconception that people before Columbus thought the earth was flat, it was published in 1828. Darwin hammered his particular nail into religion's coffin over 30 years later! There is nothing to see here, move along…!

The earth has always been known to be a sphere from early times until Darwin when the flat earth society reached the pinnacle of its popularity. Anyway it is patently wrong and not worth bothering about, unlike the Bible.

OK people, let's keep things civil.

This isn't so much a debate as people shouting past each other, or peole shouting insults at each other. I've removed some of the choicer abuse.

Please let's drop the nonsense and behave in a civil manner.

Really, so you deny that for example we need sunlight to produce vitamin D without which we contract bone diseases and that plants need sunlight to photosynthesize?
What has that got to do with anything? There was plant life, that is a fact, and the Bible says so. You will have to twist scripture better than that.

In what way is it prejudiced to point out that the bible contradicts itself and reality?
Despite your many attempts, you have failed miserably and the fact you continue in your efforts demonstrates a degree of prejudice which is plain for all to see. In fact it seem to go deeper than prejudice.


:huh: In this thread you have argued that the bible was wrong to claim that amongst other things there was a global flood and Noah didn't live to an age of 950, and have conceded that the world hasn't ended.
For you to say there was a global flood shows your lack of understanding. I have explained about the age (era) of Noah

This being the case how can you possibly now claim that "the Bible is always right"?
You are the one who says the Bible is wrong and the examples you give, for example your misunderstanding of the second coming show that you are wrong, so if you are wrong then the Bible must be right, which it is.


Why, because you say so?
Because history confirms it.


Why have you just posted yet another example of the bible claiming that the earth is flat? This hardly helps your absurd claim that "the Bible is always right" :hihi:
Circle = sphere not forgetting the revolving of the earth when for some it would be night and for others it would be day. Also the Bible says "as far as the east is from the west, all indicating a circular(spherical) earth. The earth looks like a circle from space and the sun looks like a disk from earth. The Internet is full of sites about sun circles even though they know it is a sphere, but then there is nothing like nit-picking I don't suppose. You deliberately introduce error where there is none.Remember the prisons are mainly filled with atheists.

Remember the prisons are mainly filled with atheists.

Whereas if if you didn't agree with mainstream Christianity in the 15th / 16th century you would have just been burned at the stake.................

:o The Bible is always right and you are wrong.

.

Im stopping posting on this thread. Things are getting scary.

So as a parting shot - the bible is morally right in its support for slavery ? :o

That light appeared before the sun? :o

That Noahs ark was a true story? :o

That a belief in "original sin" and hell is a morally sound way to live your life? :o

(etc)

Remember the prisons are mainly filled with atheists.


No...they are the 'largest %', but the 'believers' make up more (but are then split into Anglican, RC, CoE, Muslim, etc)

To me the 'Christianity' based religions shouldn't be classed seperately (after all, on the census results they are classed as such).....in which case, guess which would have the biggest result!


Many OT stories should not be read at face value, and that is one of the only things that Mormons have got right (they say to read it, then think about it whilst asking God to offer insight into the true meaning of it.) Noah's Ark story is a great tale to tell your kids, but is flawed as a 'true account'.

For a Christian to blindly follow the OT (which, I recall from my RC teachings was flawed in the interpretation to such a degree that Jesus needed to re-establish the true message to God's people....which is why the Jewish leaders persecuted him) is a tad naive, and shows a worrying lack of knowledge about the book you take your belief from. You must remember that the testaments are written by men, and have been translated by men from one language to another to another. Even the commonly held belief that 666 is the number of the beast is incorrect (a re-translation of the original texts revealed it was 616 - which kind of puts a dampner on The Omen really).

After all, the OT taught us "an eye for an eye". Must be confusing when Jesus taught us to "offer the other cheek".





Anyway....as Eddie Izzard said about Noah's Ark...what about the evil fish, or the evil ducks. "Come on, the earth is about to be flooded"....."So? Quack quack!"

Yeah, I just like the idea of the giraffes poking their head out of the windows.

What has that got to do with anything?
You stated: "What you say plekhanov is made up. It is out of your head." I was pointing out that my points are firmly based in scientific fact, known history and straightforward readings of the bible.

There was plant life, that is a fact, and the Bible says so. You will have to twist scripture better than that.
One of your fellow Christians Gangan cited the bible's claims that there was a 'vast canopy of water over the earth,protecting all life from the harmful rays of the sun' I was simply pointing out some of the problems this 'vast canaopy' would pose to life on earth.

Despite your many attempts, you have failed miserably and the fact you continue in your efforts demonstrates a degree of prejudice which is plain for all to see. In fact it seem to go deeper than prejudice.
This may come as a shock to you Grahame but repeating an assertion with more extreme language is not the same as substantiating your asserion.

For you to say there was a global flood shows your lack of understanding. I have explained about the age (era) of Noah
No you have not you have waffled and dissembled

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month,

How is that anything but a claim that an event happened when Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened?

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
How can you possibly understand 'all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven' to just mean the hills in the Middle East?

Will you also please explain how you could have a flood covering up the mountains in that regions only? How could flood waters possibly cover up all 5,137m of Mount Ararat without also covering the rest of the world most of which is a considerably lower elevation?

You are the one who says the Bible is wrong and the examples you give, for example your misunderstanding of the second coming show that you are wrong, so if you are wrong then the Bible must be right, which it is.
On what grounds do you claim that I am wrong?

Because history confirms it.
Prove it.

Circle = sphere not forgetting the revolving of the earth when for some it would be night and for others it would be day. Also the Bible says "as far as the east is from the west, all indicating a circular(spherical) earth. The earth looks like a circle from space and the sun looks like a disk from earth. The Internet is full of sites about sun circles even though they know it is a sphere, but then there is nothing like nit-picking I don't suppose. You deliberately introduce error where there is none.
No circle = circle and sphere = sphere, just as square = square and cube = cube in each case one term describes a 2D object and the other a 3D one. The author of Isaiah used a 2D term as they clearly believed the earth to be flat. The nonsense about 'curtains' and 'tents' is just further evidence that they believed the earth to be flat.

Remember the prisons are mainly filled with atheists.
On what grounds do you make this irrelevant claim?

Noah's Ark story is a great tale to tell your kids, but is flawed as a 'true account'.
Why on earth do you think a story which involves the murder of pretty much the whole of humanity including millions of wholly innocent children and babies to be 'great for kids'?

Jesus Christ taught love and forgiveness.

pity that the xtian hordes didn't actually practise that as they crossed the world forcing people to believe their beliefs, subduing those who refused, stealing their riches & killing their children

mmmmm

what's that american modern day xtian theme "what would jesus do?"

throw up when faced with the atrocities committed in his name, i'd say

The Bible is turning out to be more accurate than we ever imagined and for non-Christian it must be very frightening?

The Bible is always right and you are wrong.



ROTFLMAO

excuse me while i pick myself up from the floor

pure comedy

If you must know it was the followers of Darwin who said the earth was flat in an effort to discredit Christianity and like every false cult their errors will come back to haunt them the same as your malicious slander of Holy Scripture which has withstood attack from all quarters down through the generations. Many of the critics have passed away while new generations come and like others before, you are doomed to failure. The Bible is the inspired word of God who reigns supreme and like the head which is above the other members of the body, so Christ is the head of the church, he is above all and will always be omnipotent. It is his world and the Bible is his word and nothing can come between.

did you bang your clenched fist on your computer desk as you wrote each of these emotive fantasies?

Longcol.
Many, many Christians were burned at the stake.

Mr. Goose.
You are confused. See my reply to Pingpang.

Beakerzoid.
When I said about our prisons, I meant true Christians and not those who call themselves Christian because they live in a supposedly Christian country but are really atheist.

I agree with what you say about the Mormons (“they say to read it, and then think about it whilst asking God to offer insight into the true meaning of it.”) This is why Plekenhav and Mr Goose are confused. They don't sit down and prayerfully meditate on the word of God but instead take things out of context and at face value and fail to see the truth behind the words. You can do the same with any form of literature and on the forum we see it happening day after day where people take diametrically opposed views over even a short news item.

plekhanov.
You are the same as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened, they are wrong just like you

Pingpang.
A lot of things are done in the name of God that are wrong. President Bush invokes the name of God in his attack on Iraq in order to sway public opinion. The Crusades are a good example. King Richard I and others like him was a Christian in name only. Unfortunately these people pursued slaughter, rape, pillage, and slavery in the name of God bringing Christianity into disrepute but it took a real Christian, William Wilberforce, to get slavery abolished.

Mr. Goose.
You are confused. See my reply to Pingpang.



well someone's certainly confused rahnd ere, but i don't think it's mr goose

plekhanov.
You are the same as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened, they are wrong just like you


How horrible, you compare our learned friend to a Holocaust Denier now. I've got to ask - are YOU a real christian?

Why on earth do you think a story which involves the murder of pretty much the whole of humanity including millions of wholly innocent children and babies to be 'great for kids'?


In the same way as Grimms Fairy Tales, which has murders, poisonings, and the like are great stories to tell kids.

Beakerzoid.
When I said about our prisons, I meant true Christians and not those who call themselves Christian because they live in a supposedly Christian country but are really atheist.

I'm a bit confused by that statement. Which branch of Christianity is it which you say is the 'true' Christianity? CoE? RC? LDS?

Or are you saying that, whether they are believers in God and Jesus or not, as soon as they go in prison they are not Christians anymore?

Sorry, but if they still believe in God and Christ, even if they have turned away from him and are damned to hell for thier sins (if, indeed, their crime was a crime against God's Laws, not just failure to pay taxes), then they cannot be classed as atheists! An atheist denies the very existence of a higher being.

You seem to be equating atheist with evil, and this is far from the truth. If nought else, in the Christain beliefs atheists are simply the lost sheep (or prodigal sons) who, if they seek God, shall find Him.

I know plenty of atheists who are wonderful, caring, selfless people....and I know plenty of beleivers in God who are violent tossers (my brother in law is one of them). Please, do not confuse atheists with evil, it is a very blinkered view.

I agree with what you say about the Mormons (“they say to read it, and then think about it whilst asking God to offer insight into the true meaning of it.”)



Aye, that's the only way to really understand something that has gone through so many translations. Nice people the Latter Day Saints.....some strange beliefs, but their hearts are in the right place.

I'm a bit confused by that statement. Which branch of Christianity is it which you say is the 'true' Christianity? CoE? RC? LDS?

Or are you saying that, whether they are believers in God and Jesus or not, as soon as they go in prison they are not Christians anymore?

Sorry, but if they still believe in God and Christ, even if they have turned away from him and are damned to hell for thier sins (if, indeed, their crime was a crime against God's Laws, not just failure to pay taxes), then they cannot be classed as atheists! An atheist denies the very existence of a higher being.

You seem to be equating atheist with evil, and this is far from the truth. If nought else, in the Christain beliefs atheists are simply the lost sheep (or prodigal sons) who, if they seek God, shall find Him.

I know plenty of atheists who are wonderful, caring, selfless people....and I know plenty of beleivers in God who are violent tossers (my brother in law is one of them). Please, do not confuse atheists with evil, it is a very blinkered view.




Aye, that's the only way to really understand something that has gone through so many translations. Nice people the Latter Day Saints.....some strange beliefs, but their hearts are in the right place.


I know plenty of atheists who are the same as you describe, no problem there.:)

My definition of a Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. For me personally denomination doesn't come into it. If someone accepts Jesus Christ into their lives then I believe they remain a Christian regardless of what happens.

I think morality is separate from belief systems and everyone (believer or non-believer) sets their own standard of morality.

well someone's certainly confused rahnd ere, but i don't think it's mr goose

Speaking of confusion as you were, I have no doubt you will say the giraffe evolved from something else. That in itself indicates a confused state of mind. Then in the same state of confusion you say something along the lines, "The giraffe evolved from the horse???!!!" Therefore, that proves there is no God. What an absolutely illogical thing to say, and what absurd tommyrot. :loopy:

Longcol.
Many, many Christians were burned at the stake.
Yes by other Christians that was rather Longcol's point.

Beakerzoid.
When I said about our prisons,
For the second time of asking on what grounds do you claim 'prisons are mainly filled with atheists' and what relevance is this supposed to have to the topic of the thread?

I meant true Christians and not those who call themselves Christian because they live in a supposedly Christian country but are really atheist.
It would seem you're trying to include as many logical fallacies as possible into your arguments in this thread, well now you can tick off the No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

I agree with what you say about the Mormons (“they say to read it, and then think about it whilst asking God to offer insight into the true meaning of it.”) This is why Plekenhav and Mr Goose are confused. They don't sit down and prayerfully meditate on the word of God but instead take things out of context and at face value and fail to see the truth behind the words. You can do the same with any form of literature and on the forum we see it happening day after day where people take diametrically opposed views over even a short news item.
On the subject of interpretting the bible you ducked this before so I ask you again:

How is Genesis 7:11 anything but a claim that an event happened when Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month,

How can you possibly understand 'all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven' to just mean the hills in the Middle East?

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Will you also please explain how you could have a flood covering up the mountains in that regions only? How could flood waters possibly cover up all 5,137m of Mount Ararat without also covering the rest of the world most of which is a considerably lower elevation?

plekhanov.
You are the same as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened, they are wrong just like you
Now that's a deeply offensive allegation to throw at somebody, will you please either substantiate it or withdraw and apologise for equating me with holocaust deniers.

Pingpang.
A lot of things are done in the name of God that are wrong. President Bush invokes the name of God in his attack on Iraq in order to sway public opinion. The Crusades are a good example. King Richard I and others like him was a Christian in name only. Unfortunately these people pursued slaughter, rape, pillage, and slavery in the name of God bringing Christianity into disrepute but it took a real Christian, William Wilberforce, to get slavery abolished.
You know very well that the bible condones rape, slaughter, pillaging and slavery.

Speaking of confusion as you were, I have no doubt you will say the giraffe evolved from something else. That in itself indicates a confused state of mind. Then in the same state of confusion you say something along the lines, "The giraffe evolved from the horse???!!!" Therefore, that proves there is no God. What an absolutely illogical thing to say, and what absurd tommyrot. :loopy:
What on earth are you blithering about? Nobody has said anything of the sort why don't you try actually responding to what people have written instead of delusional ramblings of your own invention.

What on earth are you blithering about? Nobody has said anything of the sort why don't you try actually responding to what people have written instead of delusional ramblings of your own invention.

Regarding delusional ramblings, your posts are certainly rambling and you hold many delusions about Christianity, so you can only be talking about yourself, my posts are short and to the point.

For the second time of asking on what grounds do you claim 'prisons are mainly filled with atheists' and what relevance is this supposed to have to the topic of the thread?

Christians, Jews, or anyone who seeks to live by the Bible will endeavour to keep the Ten Commandments and providing they do, it is unlikely they will find themselves in trouble with the law. Such childish and obvious questions, I can't believe you haven't grasped such a basic concept before. :(

MOD: This thread is going nowhere and descending into school yard name calling. I'll close it and I suggest the main contributors take deep breaths. It may re-open, it may not. Thanks.