Noah

Akragon

Even Genesis says God created the moon in the first chapter... Before adam...

No it doesn't.

It says God allowed the light of two sources to reach the earth's surface. The "greater light" (sun) to rule the day, and the "lesser light" (stars) to rule the night in original Hebrew.

FlyersFan

randyvs
Suppossedly according to what?

The bible. If it's the exact word of God as you claim, then the flood would have been 4300 bc.

According to the Bible, the time was much closer to 2400 BC or 4400 years ago.

Maybe you got the 4300 from years ago, and not BC?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Very true Grim, I do care more about God than evidence. Well said,
from both sides actually, whether or not you realise it.

FlyersFan

ElohimJD
Measurements given to Noah were in ancient cubits (unknown).

Measurements
Noahs Ark basic info

God gives Noah detailed instructions for building the ark: it is to be of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward"; and an entrance on the side.

We do indeed know what a cubit size is.

You indeed know what a modern cubit is.

You do not know if that is the same as the unit of measure used by Noah (ancient cubit).

ElohimJD
According to the Bible, the time was much closer to 2400 BC or 4400 years ago.
Maybe you got the 4300 from years ago, and not BC?

TYPO ... I got typing fast ...

2400 BC ... we have uninterrupted civilizations all around the world.
The Egyptians. The continent of India. Native American tribes.
More evidence ... the flood didn't happen.

ElohimJD

Akragon

Even Genesis says God created the moon in the first chapter... Before adam...

No it doesn't.

It says God allowed the light of two sources to reach the earth's surface. The "greater light" (sun) to rule the day, and the "lesser light" (stars) to rule the night in original Hebrew.

Stars do not light the earth what so ever...

Have you ever been camping on a very star filled sky? Theres NO light...

Again you're reaching for anything to show you're correct... borderline insanity actually

Though I freely admit your "moon arrival" idea is one of the funniest things I've ever heard... And of course you do know without the moon there is no tides... and no life

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Wow, where did you get those ideas from? There is quite likely zero chance that any of it is true, but wow none the less. For instance, life couldn't have evolved if it only appeared in Earth's orbit 5000 or so years ago. Since the Noah's flood myth happens after humans appeared on the planet (since it involves humans and all), that means that before that myth occurred, there wasn't a moon in the sky. That is absurd, I don't see any ancient texts describing a moonless sky suddenly being moon filled all of a sudden. But hey, don't leave it to me to tell you that you are wrong, here let science do it for you:

If We Had No Moon

If you would take away the Moon suddenly, it would change the global altitude of the ocean. Right now there is a distortion which is elongated around the equator, so if we didn’t have this effect, suddenly a lot of water would be redistributed toward the polar regions.

The Moon has been a stabilizing factor for the axis of rotation of the Earth. If you look at Mars, for instance, that planet has wobbled quite dramatically on its axis over time due to the gravitational influence of all the other planets in the solar system. Because of this obliquity change, the ice that is now at the poles on Mars would sometimes drift to the equator. But the Earth’s moon has helped stabilize our planet so that its axis of rotation stays in the same direction. For this reason, we had much less climatic change than if the Earth had been alone. And this has changed the way life evolved on Earth, allowing for the emergence of more complex multi-cellular organisms compared to a planet where drastic climatic change would allow only small, robust organisms to survive.

The Moon has influenced biology in other ways as well. For species living near the coast, the tide is an important factor. When you look at the shorelines, you can recognize different layers of organisms that have adapted to the salt water conditions based on the ebb and flow of the tide.

The eyesight of many mammals is sensitive to moonlight. The level of adaptation of night vision would be very different without the Moon. Many of these species have evolved in such a way that their night vision could work in even partial lunar illumination, because that’s when they are most active. But they can be more subjected to predators, too, so there is a balance between your ability to see and your ability not to be seen. The Moon has completely changed evolution in that aspect.

Human vision is so sensitive that we are almost able to work by the light of the Milky Way. The full Moon has more light than we need to see at night. For most of our history, we were hunting and fishing or doing agriculture, and we organized our lives by using the Moon. It determined the time for hunting, or the time where we could harvest. That’s why most of our calendars are based on the Moon.

Life literally started and evolved thanks to the moon. The idea that it appeared in our skies several millenia ago is completely wrong.

edit on 21-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Your source is good, but it takes the current setup of Earth and hypothesized what would happen if we "lost" the moon. My opinion (not saying it is correct) is that the Earth was very different before the flood, and science is unable to know that data presently to calculate my opinion.

ElohimJD

FlyersFan

randyvs
Suppossedly according to what?

The bible. If it's the exact word of God as you claim, then the flood would have been 4300 bc.

According to the Bible, the time was much closer to 2400 BC or 4400 years ago.

Maybe you got the 4300 from years ago, and not BC?

You know, maybe you shouldn't have volunteered that information. If the time frame for a flood happening in 4300 bc is off because it is too recent, an even EARLIER date would be even less credible. Here a link to a 9550 year old tree in Sweden:

Old Tjikko

Old Tjikko is a 9,550-year-old Norway Spruce tree, located on Fulufjället Mountain of Dalarna province in Sweden. Old Tjikko is the world's oldest known living individual clonal tree. However, there are many examples of much older clonal colonies (multiple trees connected by a common root system), such as "Pando", estimated to be over 80,000 years old.

The age of the tree was determined by carbon dating of the root system under the tree, not by dendrochronology, or counting tree rings. The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few hundred years old, but the tree as a whole may have survived for much longer due to a process known as layering (when a branch comes in contact with the ground, it sprouts a new root), or vegetative cloning (when the trunk dies but the root system is still alive, it may sprout a new trunk).

The oldest living non-clonal tree, verified by dendrochronology, is 5064 years old as of 2014 (the former record was held by "Methuselah" (4847)). Both trees are Great Basin Bristlecone Pine located in California. Vegetative cloning and reproduction is common in many plants, such as the creosote bush (see "King Clone", estimated from growth rate to be almost 12,000 years old). Many other plants also may take advantage of this process either exclusively or in tandem with sexual reproduction, but dating or estimating the age of these organisms may not be possible without evidence (e.g., old roots, ancient remains, consistent growth rates).

randyvs
I do care more about God than evidence.

That's what the muslims say about the Qu'ran and Muhammad. And they got it wrong too.

Your mistake is in thinking that the Noahs Ark story came from God. It didn't.
Like I said .. pick one ...
If God tells no lies then Noahs Ark story is not from him because it's a proven fake.
If the story is from God then God lies God tells lies, and you wouldn't want to worship a fraud.

It's one or the other. Pick one.

Truthful God = Noahs Ark isn't from him and fake.
Liar God = Noahs Ark fake and you shouldn't worship a liar god anyways.

Which will be your choice.

FlyersFan

3 pair of reproducing humans. First off ... the inbreeding of 3 pair of RELATED reproducing humans would have killed off the offspring quickly. All those first cousins inbreeding would = lots of dead offspring. Lots of diseased offspring. Lots of defects. and back then, defects would mean you couldn't survive.

3 pair of reproducing humans would NOT become half a million people in a hundred years.

IF the children of those reproducing humans lived ... and that's a big IF considering that they were inbreeding, there wasn't any food, no medicine, deaths in childbirths, deaths from diseases, deaths from simple infections, etc .... it's more like you'd have a few dozen people on the planet.

Oh .. and there was no such thing as the Tower of Babel. That's a myth primitive people invented to try to explain the differences in language. And there wouldn't have been enough people on the planet to start building cities 115 years after the flood anyways. It doesn't fit. Obviously it's yet another peasant-myth.

edit on 3/21/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

You have your reasoning to prove to yourself the God of the Old Testament is a myth. Who am I to change your mind regarding this free choice.

I am but a man.

reply to post by Akragon

Stars do not light the earth what so ever...

Tell that to some one who navigates by the stars and I quote;

"A true skipper needs no compass, he navigates by the stars".

McArthur

ElohimJD

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Wow, where did you get those ideas from? There is quite likely zero chance that any of it is true, but wow none the less. For instance, life couldn't have evolved if it only appeared in Earth's orbit 5000 or so years ago. Since the Noah's flood myth happens after humans appeared on the planet (since it involves humans and all), that means that before that myth occurred, there wasn't a moon in the sky. That is absurd, I don't see any ancient texts describing a moonless sky suddenly being moon filled all of a sudden. But hey, don't leave it to me to tell you that you are wrong, here let science do it for you:

If We Had No Moon

If you would take away the Moon suddenly, it would change the global altitude of the ocean. Right now there is a distortion which is elongated around the equator, so if we didn’t have this effect, suddenly a lot of water would be redistributed toward the polar regions.

The Moon has been a stabilizing factor for the axis of rotation of the Earth. If you look at Mars, for instance, that planet has wobbled quite dramatically on its axis over time due to the gravitational influence of all the other planets in the solar system. Because of this obliquity change, the ice that is now at the poles on Mars would sometimes drift to the equator. But the Earth’s moon has helped stabilize our planet so that its axis of rotation stays in the same direction. For this reason, we had much less climatic change than if the Earth had been alone. And this has changed the way life evolved on Earth, allowing for the emergence of more complex multi-cellular organisms compared to a planet where drastic climatic change would allow only small, robust organisms to survive.

The Moon has influenced biology in other ways as well. For species living near the coast, the tide is an important factor. When you look at the shorelines, you can recognize different layers of organisms that have adapted to the salt water conditions based on the ebb and flow of the tide.

The eyesight of many mammals is sensitive to moonlight. The level of adaptation of night vision would be very different without the Moon. Many of these species have evolved in such a way that their night vision could work in even partial lunar illumination, because that’s when they are most active. But they can be more subjected to predators, too, so there is a balance between your ability to see and your ability not to be seen. The Moon has completely changed evolution in that aspect.

Human vision is so sensitive that we are almost able to work by the light of the Milky Way. The full Moon has more light than we need to see at night. For most of our history, we were hunting and fishing or doing agriculture, and we organized our lives by using the Moon. It determined the time for hunting, or the time where we could harvest. That’s why most of our calendars are based on the Moon.

Life literally started and evolved thanks to the moon. The idea that it appeared in our skies several millenia ago is completely wrong.

edit on 21-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Your source is good, but it takes the current setup of Earth and hypothesized what would happen if we "lost" the moon. My opinion (not saying it is correct) is that the Earth was very different before the flood, and science is unable to know that data presently to calculate my opinion.

WRONG. Science is VERY aware of what the Earth was like before this supposed flood happened.

Stratigraphy

Stratigraphy is a branch of geology which studies rock layers (strata) and layering (stratification). It is primarily used in the study of sedimentary and layered volcanic rocks. Stratigraphy includes two related subfields: lithologic stratigraphy or lithostratigraphy, and biologic stratigraphy or biostratigraphy.

Gasping for Breath in the Jurassic Era

During the Jurassic, abrupt global warming of between 9 and 18 Fahrenheit (5 and 10 degrees Celsius) was associated with severe environmental change. Many organisms went extinct and the global carbon cycle was thrown off balance. One of the most intriguing effects was that the oxygen content of the oceans became drastically reduced, and this caused many marine species to die off.

These intervals of reduced oxygen content in the oceans are now known as oceanic anoxic events, or OAEs. OAEs are associated with periods of global warming and have occurred a few times in Earth's history. In the recent study, researchers focused specifically on the Toarcian OAE, a well-documented OAE from the early Jurassic.

During OAEs, the remains of dead organisms and other organic matter accumulate on the ocean floor and became layers of organic-rich sediments. Today, scientists are examining the chemical and isotopic compositions of these sedimentary deposits in order to determine the actual extent to which the oceans became anoxic. By doing so, they have been able to draw connections between oxygen-depleted oceans and the disruption of Earth's carbon cycle.

ElohimJD
You indeed know what a modern cubit is.
You do not know if that is the same as the unit of measure used by Noah (ancient cubit).

YES WE DO
We have ancient Egyptian cubit rods and ancient Summerian cubit rods.
They are very close in size. Pretty much the length of a mans arm.
Noahs Ark was supposedly right in that same time period.

Again - Noahs Ark Info

God gives Noah detailed instructions for building the ark: it is to be of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward"; and an entrance on the side.

450 feet long.
50 feet wide.
30 feet high.

That can NOT hold 16,000,000 critters, their food for a year, and fresh water for a year.
Not even close. NOT POSSIBLE.

FlyersFan

ElohimJD
So when Peter talks about Noah living by faith, and recalls the story of Noah to New Testament disciples (Hebrews 11), is that story not from God too?

Peter was speaking from his own beliefs. That was from PETER.

Why did Jesus Christ himself keep the Old Testament laws while living a perfect life as an example to "true Christians" if those actions are "not at all from God"?

1 -New Testament .. different from Old Testament.

2 - Jesus did not keep the Old Testament laws. Not all of them. He preached the exact opposite of them.

Jesus ... Says - 'The meek shall inherit the Earth'
'God' of the OT ... Tells Moses to take over 'the promised land' by force.

Jesus ... Mercy incarnate. Forgiveness.
'God' of the OT ... Adam and Eve take a bite from an apple, so they and all mankind are forever punished with illness and pain and death.

Jesus ... Says - 'Love God and love your neighbor'
'God' of the OT - tells Joshua to slaughter whole towns of innocent people and animals for no reason.

Jesus ... says 'forgive seven times seventy times'
Jesus ... says 'But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (Mt 5:38-39)
'God' of the OT - 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand'
(which just leaves a lot of angry blind lame people )

Jesus directly contradicted the Old Testament 'God's violence -
Jesus Repudiation of Old Testament Violence

Most interestingly, in Deuteronomy Moses goes so far as to stress that the law must not be waved aside out of compassion. “Show no pity,” the text says, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). Yet, Jesus not only commands people to “show pity,” he replaces the Old Testament quid pro quo ethic with his radical ethic of unconditional love.

For example, while the Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies and sometimes command them to slaughter them, Jesus forbid his disciples from ever hating or doing any harm to an enemy. Instead, he commanded people to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:43-45). Luke includes the command to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you” and “pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk 6:27-28).

Most surprising of all, Jesus emphatically makes loving enemies rather than hating them the precondition to being a child of God. We’re to love, bless, pray for and do good to our enemies “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:45, emphasis added). Only if we love indiscriminately can we “be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Lk 6:35). Small wonder, therefore, that when Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms — Jesus rebuked him.

Jesus Without Baggage

But who wrote about God in the Old Testament? Was it God writing his own autobiography, or was it people writing about God as they understood him? I think it was the latter. The Old Testament is a collection of material written by many people, in many situations, over a long period of time. What they had in common was that they felt a connection to God or with the nation Israel.

Perhaps God provided special insights to some of them in some way, but we don’t know to what extent, and it seems that they had a very incomplete understanding of God. The Old Testament idea of God certainly reflects many of the assumptions about gods in the surrounding cultures of that day—things that we no longer believe.

The writers of the Old Testament were bound by the periods in which they lived, and their ideas of an angry, violent, vindictive God were products of their limitations. It is an incredible burden on them to expect that they were perfect in everything they wrote.

ElohimJD ... explain how we have 80,000 year old trees still living ... and 100,000 year old coral reefs undisturbed and still living .... and how we have ice core samples showing that time period and they reveal no flood happened.

edit on 3/21/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

You have build up quite the array of justifications for refusing to acknowledge the God of Creation as His son acknowledged.

Free choice.

Why does my faith cause such a reaction in your mind. I have free choice to live by faith, and you have free choice to live by what seems right to you.

randyvs
Tell that to some one who navigates by the stars ...

Points to navigate by are not the same as a source of light that 'gives light to the earth'.
Not even close.
Go out in the middle of the desert and see if those stars ..'light up the earth'.
They do not.
Obviously the bible was talking about the sun and the moon.

FlyersFan

Grimpachi
the ones I will be diving are approximately 6,000 years old.

Have fun diving! Watch out for sharks. Your reefs are rather young.
There are some in the world 100,000 years old. Can you imagine?
That's so awesome!!

Yes I know they are a bit young I am not sure why, but I am looking into it. As far as sharks go I enjoy seeing them but they are a rarity now due to over fishing by the chinese for their fins. As far as those 100,000 year old reefs I hope to see them one day as my goal is to buy a large enough sailboat travel the world and make enough income off of running some dive tours.

Coral reefs are so fragile when it comes to change that there is absolutely no way hey could survive anything as drastic as a global flood. ATM there are some dying off due to climate change and that would be like a rain drop in the ocean compared to a biblical flood

FlyersFan

But you make the mistake of believing in facts that turn tail on a dime.I believe in facts. Your mistake is believing in something that has been debunked.
........ The story Moses wrote down is the refreshed truth God had him write down.
Moses didn't write down anything. The story was written by the Hebrews around 500 BC. Moses supposedly lived 1400 BC. ALSO - it was a story that was stolen and reworded from the Summerian Giglamesh story. It's not even Hebrew.
...
Just because it's in the Old Testament doesn't mean it's God's word.
It's human word. Written by Hebrew men ~500 bc. Transcribed poorly from Summerian stories.
...
- It is scripture and all your facts do not nor ever will, add up to God.
-Old testament stories were not supposed to be taken literally. And they don't add up to 'God'.
- The facts prove Noahs Ark didn't happen. Period.
- The Old Testament stories are fiction .. not the 'word of god'. Period.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove these statement as fact.It is an extrapolation assumption at best.You are doing the same thing Randy is doing..forming an opinion from your agenda.If you can prove YOU haves studied and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that OT stories are made up .As it stands it is only your "belief" which you have stated over and over about "facts. Believing in facts is an oxymoron.You can only "know" facts…..and yes maths methodology is the basis of all facts…..1+1=2…you can KNOW this as a fact however you cannot "know" for a fact that the Law and the Prophets(Old Testament) are only myth and is stolen from Sumerian stories.

Here are some solid math facts about the Law and the Prophets.It is impossible to know by fact "who" wrote them.Which means as fact it is impossible to know "all" of whom who didn't write them.I know for a fact YOU didn't write them or my next door neighbors dog didn't write them however I can't know for a fact that Moses DIDN'T write them.That is an assumption.However Moses is much more of a plausibility to have written them than you or a dog and much better than Sumerians however the fact remains you cannot truthfully in the name of "fact" exclude him for being the plausible writer which you have summarily done.In that fact you are just as wrong about a fact as Randy.

The fact is it is impossible to know as fact if there was a great flood however it is very plausible to know the possibility of a world wide flood is highly implausible.However the fact remains you can only believe ...not know.You are in the same boat as Randy except you have a paddle(but are not using it much).However the fact remains it is impossible for you to "know" as fact…. it is only highly plausible..which is much , much better odds but not fact.

The facts most people spout of are belief "facts" because they "read" it,They have not done the hard core investigation themselves they only trust through belief what someone else(s) has said.The fact is the majority of things like this always have two very opposing sides.You could just as easily believe one to the other.You gravitate towards those that state what they believe as fact.Randy seems to gravitate toward what he or others believe with very little reliance on fact.I know which side I'm leaning on however it doesn't change the fact that both of you only "believe".

That's why it's a Mexican standoff.Both of you "believe" you are right when both of you are wrong!I am not picking sides.I could seriously care less what you or Randy or anyone believes.There's nothing you or anyone could ever say that could make me "know" anything.I can only "know" by my experience and that fact is there are very very few "know" experiences in the physical realm life by anyone.The majority of everyone's experience is through belief not first hand "knowing" fact.

The basis of Hisenbergs uncertainty principle is it is IMPOSSIBLE to precisely KNOW by measurement the position of a particle and precisely KNOW and measure it's velocity. That would seem to be very simple knowledge but it is impossible.The construct of REALITY is the biggest hurdle for all quantum physicist because it is impossible to "know" what REALITY is!!The greatest minds in the world have tried and failed to quantify it with a Unified theory but they can't.

The closets we can come to "know" reality is simple math……1+1=2..and of course it would only make sense that truth/reality can only be known"via" math methodology.So to try and prove as fact Moses or the Hebrews didn't write the Law and The prophets but stole it from the Sumerians(or whomever)by any method but math is folly.It will never add up because it is not math.However there is a great plausibility in the fact that the Law and the Prophets wasn't just a "book" ripped of from some pagan myth making cultures…and yes it is simple math.

ElohimJD
You have your reasoning to prove to yourself the God of the Old Testament is a myth.

You completely dismissed the facts .. the math ... 3 pair of related reproducing humans could NOT take us to the population we have today. And they certainly couldnt' take the planet to the population 115 years later of the Tower of Babel myth. Get off the personal stuff and address those facts. Facts that prove Noahs Ark did not happen.

Akragon

Stars do not light the earth what so ever...

Have you ever been camping on a very star filled sky? Theres NO light...

Again you're reaching for anything to show you're correct... borderline insanity actually

Though I freely admit your "moon arrival" idea is one of the funniest things I've ever heard... And of course you do know without the moon there is no tides... and no life

The words in Hebrew are the words in Hebrew regardless of your agreement with them.

I have aid at least a dozen times, this was my opinion and I never expected it to be thought of as correct from another mind, my thoughts do not need to be yours, and they were never intended to be so.

God created life, not the tides of the moon.

Rex282
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove these statement as fact.

Dude .. it's proven. Noahs Ark did not happen. Science and math prove it. Period.