I agree. I don't think the ark has been found either. It always upsets me when I hear Young Earthers make claims like this. Even more when they claim that there is scientific evidence for a "young" universe. The fact remains that the universe is arround 13.7 billion years old.
nope! thanks :)
Hilarious! I just got sent this link by someone the yesterday. They said something like 'Check this out. Who knows if they're right, but hey... you never know.'I responded by illustrating the other massive issues with the story from a natural sense (geological/archaeological evidence, speciation, where did the water come from/go?).The response came back that he didn't really mean it in the first place and that I shouldn't take Genesis so literally.I asked for any predictive system for discerning what of scripture is literal/figurative other than whatever-is-proven-wrong-by-science-is-figurative-and-the-rest-is-literal. No response yet.I can't figure out what I'm supposed to take from the flood story in a 'figurative' sense. What meditative gem lies uncovered for me?Even more so why god specifically inspired it to be noted that one could stone a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night on her father's door step.So... as John points out, the flood is bunk. Given that, I wonder if this point becomes one focused on the issue that god supposedly inspired the Bible, but there are problems in it that have to be explained away? In my experience, bringing up any objections with respect to scripture is always met by accusations of 'misreading, mistranslation, interpretation, taking out of context, etc.'This seems to be circular to me. God is perfect, therefore his word is perfect. Any apparently 'wrong' things in his word are not actually wrong... because God is perfect.So, again, what's an objective, predictive, testable set of rules that forms the basis for figurative/literal reading of parts of the Bible? If someone can lay this out and it's ever disproven (again), will Christians recant on Biblical inerrancy or belief in god? If not, why not?
Reminds me of the findings of "Ida" and "Piltdown Man" doesn't it?
Id say its more likely the Noah story came about by early mans interpretations of trying to understand certain situations he saw and experienced around him.Such as seeing some sign of deposits of sand and shells and petrified fish bones etc.....found high up in the mountains!.Far away from the seaWondering how the hell they might have ever ended up getting there?,thinking it might have been through anger of the Gods flooding the land.Seeing as anything seen as bad like tsunarmi,eartquake.killer lightning bolts,drought,failed crops,flood etc etc ....back in them days was almost always all said to be because of the ANGER OF GODSWhile not yet understanding, that yes, landforms can actually sometimes also rise up out of below the waves of the seas.
Two things I have to say.First of all, a link from this one states that the archeologists rule out this find being human settlement becuase this discovery was found at 13000 feet and no human settlements have been discovered higher then 11000 feet in the Ararat MtsSo what their saying here is that there has been human settlements found in the Ararat Mts before......they are also saying that some were found as high as 11000 feet....so what is so unplausable with this just being another human settlement of some kind?Also, these christian archeologists said that according to the carbon dating some chunks of wood from the site dated at 4800 years old which is around the time of the flood.......this is so hypocritical, christians are always discrediting carbon dating and saying how inaccurate it is, but when it fits their own belief's carbon dating suddenly becomes evidence for their finding....?
Post a Comment