FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-10-2001, 10:02 AM   #41
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1
Exclamation

Just to clarify something, as I notice quite a number of people get this wrong (I was one until recently):

The flood story claims that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. However, Noah was in the ark for almost a year before the flood waters subsided!

So when you think about how ridiculous it is to think he was able to feed all those "kinds" for 40 days, realize that it was actually a year.

Also, this pretty much kills the "plants can survive a flood sometimes" excuse. Maybe they can for a day or two, but certainly not a year under salt water.
project2501 is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 10:26 AM   #42
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by project2501:
<strong>Just to clarify something, as I notice quite a number of people get this wrong (I was one until recently):

The flood story claims that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. However, Noah was in the ark for almost a year before the flood waters subsided!

So when you think about how ridiculous it is to think he was able to feed all those "kinds" for 40 days, realize that it was actually a year.

Also, this pretty much kills the "plants can survive a flood sometimes" excuse. Maybe they can for a day or two, but certainly not a year under salt water.</strong>
Yes he was in the Ark for about 9 months just as Joseph was pregnant for 9 months. It makes the story just that more real.
 
Old 12-10-2001, 12:12 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA USA
Posts: 3,568
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by botkin:
<strong>...There are many other extra-biblical accounts of a massive flood; the epic of Gilgamesh and the Greeks have accounts as well...
Botkin</strong>
Question from the sidelines here... for awhile, I've been trying to remember where I'd heard the name Gilgamesh, so I was excited to see your post. Can you refresh my memory on who/what Gilgamesh was? It's really been bugging me!
DarkBronzePlant is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 01:15 PM   #44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Takaliapa, KR
Posts: 188
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>

Yes he was in the Ark for about 9 months just as Joseph was pregnant for 9 months. It makes the story just that more real.</strong>
Since when did men become pregnant? Last I knew, only women became pregnant.
Heleilu is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 04:42 PM   #45
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Heleilu:
<strong>
Since when did men become pregnant? Last I knew, only women became pregnant.</strong>
You probably mean that only females can become pregnant physically because males are also part women.

Joseph was pregnant with dispair indicates that his melancholy was involutional (persistent) and hence returned to the state of mind he was at birth to give an account of himself when Christ was born unto him.
 
Old 12-10-2001, 07:23 PM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>
A parable is not fictitiuos but real in an allegorical way.
</strong>
From Webster's:
Parable:
a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle.

Perhaps you have another definition of parable in mind? Whatever the case, this is YOUR interpretation, not facts. While I do find your replies quite amusing (and a bit off-subject), I am only interested in facts.

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: emc2 ]</p>
emc2 is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 07:47 PM   #47
Amos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by emc2:
<strong>

From Webster's:
Parable:
a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle.

Perhaps you have another definition of parable in mind? Whatever the case, this is YOUR interpretation, which is based on YOUR beliefs, not facts. While I do find your replies quite amusing (and a bit off-subject), I am only interested in facts.

[ December 10, 2001: Message edited by: emc2 ]</strong>
OK, you study dictionaries. If the bible is fiction why look for evidence?
 
Old 12-10-2001, 07:51 PM   #48
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by big d:
<strong>When Did the Flood Occur?
I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the covenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. Yahweh establishes the covenant with Abram about 135 years after he was born (11:32, 26). Abram was born when Terah was 70 (11:26). Terah was born when Nahor was 29 (11:24). Nahor was born when Serug was 30 (11:22). Serug was born when Re'u was 30 (11:20). Re'u was born when Peleg was 30 (11:18). Peleg was born when Eber is 34 (11:16). Eber was born when Shelah was 30 (11:14). Shelah was born from a 35 year-old Arpach'shad (11:12). Arpach'shad was born from Shem 2 years after the flood (11:10).
Since the date of Solomon's reign is agreed to be about 950[+/- 50]BCE, we can calculate the time of the flood using this chronology. Starting with Solomon and working backward, we have:
950BCE +480 +430 +135 +70 +29 +30 +30 +30 +34 +30 +35 +2= 2285BCE.
China and Egypt have unboken civilizations that extend back past 3500 BCE. The Bible is therefore errant.</strong>
Very Interesting! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
emc2 is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 07:53 PM   #49
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Muad'Dib:
<strong>

I think you'll have better luck if you monitor the E/C forum for new YECs; that's where they tend to spend most of their time. Anyone who's tried to defend Noah's Ark has disappeared after a while, though, so don't get your hopes up too high.</strong>

I believe you are quite correct.
emc2 is offline  
Old 12-10-2001, 08:09 PM   #50
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: nc
Posts: 40
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>

OK, you study dictionaries. If the bible is fiction why look for evidence?</strong>
Did you even read my question? In my closing I said,"I believe the Bible to a historic document with lots of holes/questions/contradictions. But hey, after all - it was still written by humans, and you can just about find as many holes/questions/contradictions in todays history books."

I believe the Bible to have a lot of fiction in it, but also a lot of historical fact. The goal is to seperate the two. If you can't answer my question in the way I have presented it, then please do not provide me with sideline answers.
emc2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:21 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.