Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JayW · 02-13-2008, 06:06 PM

The Tigris and euphrates rivers come together just befoe they reach the gulf. The Lower Zab river joins with the Tigres just before it combines with the Euphrates. There's three rivers that combine to mke one. It's possible there could have been a fourth one or a branch of one of the three rivers.

-Jay- · 02-13-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

No need for anger here. I'm making my points. Damn good ones.
Its logical to see the area where the Ark was floating as being less damaged by the flood in order to preserve the inmates. Still changing the land however in some ways.
I see my thoughts here as persuasive to any audience.
If you say the eden account is based on the world when it was written then you have biblical geography error. Run with it.!
Otherwise humbly agree that the bible authors expected the readers to understand the geography had been rearranged by the flood. The Euphrates is not a head of a larger river. Back then everyone knew that.

No anger here, Rob. Amusement, maybe, but no anger.

OK. Here we go again.

IF you have a global flood, where everything is covered over with water, and the only thing not under water is this miniscule wooden box (miniscule on the scale of an 8000 + mile diameter mostly spherical surface of water), the sea conditions at any given point are gonna look pretty much the same as the sea conditions at any other given point.

Even if I generously allow, for the sake of the discussion, that the Ark might have enjoyed some protection from the maelstrom (which, if you recall Gen 8:1 "And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark:", may be a stretch - that reads almost like God had basically forgotten about them, and only remembered at the last minute that he had some unfinished business), you've still got to deal with the effects of this enormous volume of water acting on the surface of the Earth. By your own "reasoning", this volume of water is scouring, reshaping, laying down vast, thick sediment beds, building mountains, and all manner of other stuff. Yet, apparently, the part under the ark isn't affected? That just doesn't hold togther - your own scenario lacks internal consistency.

Is it possible that you're really so convinced of your own worldview that you honestly fail to see that you haven't convinced anyone here?

Now as Hex and others have pointed out, if Eden was intended to be located in some vastly different pre-flood geographic configuration, which, within the context of the narrative, none of the readers would have ever seen, it makes no sense whatsoever to have used place names that would have been familiar to the readers. Eden might as well have been located at the corner of Hollywood and Vine in that case.

The fact that familiar place names were used is fairly strong evidence that the intended audience was expected to relate the setting to a geography that they were familiar with, and significantly undercuts the notion that the geography was significantly different.

I don't buy your assertion that "everyone" would've known that the Euphrates "wasn't the head of a larger river". People in that area at that time just generally didn't travel that far, and the finer points of geography would have been secondary to other things like, say, eating. In any event, it doesn't support your view anyway, as it reinforces the notion that the Euphrates before Da Fludde was the same as the Euphrates after.

You simply don't have a case here Rob.

regards,

NinJay

wavy_wonder1 · 02-13-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malintent

Prior to Galileo, those "biblical boundaries", as you call it, were a lot closer to biblical literalism than they are today. Moving within the boundaries of the bible is as easy as moving those boundaries, for fundies like you that just MAKE SHIT UP.
Your bible is a faerie tale written by ignorant goat herders. It all works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

I wonder why we have not located the entrance by satellite since it is guarded by a cherub with a large flaming sword. Robert explain if the area wasn't as flooded

as the rest of the world did the angle give up its post? did it die in the flood? Can angles die? anyways i am truly interested would not the angle been able to magically prevent the water from entering the garden? if so then what was the need for the boat. could not the angle and god just herded the airmails into eden and start all over again? Where is eden? Where or where can we visit the greatest zoo ever created where lions are herbivores and there is a tree that gives the knowledge of life and the most important the talking snakes contained therein.

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

Sapho · 02-13-2008, 09:35 PM

Well, there was this desicated body of a snake found with a strangly over developed laryinx. Unfortunatly it was found by a stoned beduin "somewhere' in the desert, only his camel really knows where, and its not telling. Nasty beasts, camels.

WVIncagold · 02-14-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

The Tigris and euphrates rivers come together just befoe they reach the gulf. The Lower Zab river joins with the Tigres just before it combines with the Euphrates. There's three rivers that combine to mke one. It's possible there could have been a fourth one or a branch of one of the three rivers.

its also possible i will loose a hundred pounds but i am pretty sure that aint never going to happen

. Keep to what is said not what is possible since some of the claims the bible makes are pretty beyond what is possible.

Hex · 02-14-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

Robert -

Then please explain the Euphrates and Assyria being used to give a location of Eden. If the " old world was destroyed completly", then why use the names of existant locations/features? And, if it were the "least affected by the flood as it had the Ark floating around", why do we -not- find those other locations/features?

I only ask because a world-wide destructive flood should be a worldwide destructive flood. A 'selective' flood ... Well ... then we're on to a different story, aren't we?

Thanks, :wave:

- Hex

If I understand you.
The flood/chaos probably was less severe in this area in order to preserve the Ark. perhaps some giant eddy actions going on. Yet the area would still be changed a little.
The reason for the location of eden is the evidence. The readers knew thee was no river with four heads. The river, Euphrates, was famous for going into the sea. it was not a head of another river.
If you disagree then this should be a case of biblical geography error. Am i wrong in my reasoning?
Read more carefully the account.
Rob Byers

First, please recognize that 'giant eddy actions' would provide more turbulence in the water (and hence more destruction) than less. The ark, according to the descriptions, was sealed tight by Yahweh. Imagine an empty (air-filled) soda bottle with it's cap on as an analogy. No matter how turbulent the water's actions, it's going to bob to the surface, and the inside will stay dry.

And I would argue that yes, no one should be confusing the mouth of a river with it's headwaters. JayW's view above indicates that in oder for you to have confluance of four rivvers, you've got to be setting up your rirvers against the flow. But them the question is begged, if that's what was ment, did Yahweh 'mis-speak' on the subject?

And please, don't assume that I've no clue what I'm talking about. I quoted, directly, those bits that were important for the location of Eden. If you'd like to try and explain this with the flood, let's take a look, shall we?

Quote:

From Genesis 7:

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
... <snipped Noah's family, creepythings entering the ark, and the sealing> ...
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

From Genesis 8:

2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

From this, please show me where I've missed the 'selective depth' and 'selective turbulence' of the water. From what I can see, it's gradual in it's coming and gradual in it's leaving. (Though it seems to only reach a height of 22.5 feet?)

And please find your answers in the text quoted, not from any other source. I don't want speculation, I want to understand where the text backs up your statements and thus becomes relevant to understanding this 'Quest for Eden' ...

Thanks, :wave:

- Hex

-Jay- · 02-14-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

And please find your answers in the text quoted, not from any other source. I don't want speculation, I want to understand where the text backs up your statements and thus becomes relevant to understanding this 'Quest for Eden' ...

Mean, mean Hex! Trying to keep the discussion constrained to what the Bible actually says rather than letting everyone spout baseless speculation. That's just not fair! :Cheeky:

regards,

NinJay

JayW · 02-14-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

WVIncagold
its also possible i will loose a hundred pounds but i am pretty sure that aint never going to happen. Keep to what is said not what is possible since some of the claims the bible makes are pretty beyond what is possible.

It had everything to do with the opinion that there was no such thing as four rivers runnng into two. I don't believe your as dense as you act. You accuse me of getting off topic and then go off into losing weight. Do you believe that if you lose weight four rivers will appear in Mesopotamia. It's no just a possibility, since there are four rivers today that empty into the Persian Gulf in the lower part of the valley. I think you need to pay ore attention to the context. It was not about losing weight.

Betenoire · 02-14-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayW

Quote:

WVIncagold
its also possible i will loose a hundred pounds but i am pretty sure that aint never going to happen. Keep to what is said not what is possible since some of the claims the bible makes are pretty beyond what is possible.

It had everything to do with the opinion that there was no such thing as four rivers runnng into two. I don't believe your as dense as you act. You accuse me of getting off topic and then go off into losing weight. Do you believe that if you lose weight four rivers will appear in Mesopotamia. It's no just a possibility, since there are four rivers today that empty into the Persian Gulf in the lower part of the valley. I think you need to pay ore attention to the context. It was not about losing weight.

Sure, there could have been four rivers flowing into eachother back in Biblical time.
But the Bible says they had a common source and flowed out of Eden before dividing in to four rivers. That's quite different.
What's more, the Bible associates these rivers with lands (basically, Ethiopia and Arabia) which directly contradicts the theory that they all flow in to the Persian Gulf (Ethiopia does not border the Persian Gulf)

JayW · 02-14-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Hex
JayW's view above indicates that in oder for you to have confluance of four rivvers, you've got to be setting up your rirvers against the flow. But them the question is begged, if that's what was ment, did Yahweh 'mis-speak' on the subject?

You seem to understand the Bible fairly good,in which case yo should know that the Bible claims that there were four rivers. It says nothing bout the direction of flow. That's a human understanding of what should have been said. There are four rivers there today. The Bible only made the claim that the rivers flowed out of the garden. Unless you know for sure the exact location of the garden, you can't say if they were against the flow or not. Does anyone know if eden was upstream or downstream? If they do their not saying.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2008, 06:06 PM	#41
JayW Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: dallas.texas Posts: 191	The Tigris and euphrates rivers come together just befoe they reach the gulf. The Lower Zab river joins with the Tigres just before it combines with the Euphrates. There's three rivers that combine to mke one. It's possible there could have been a fourth one or a branch of one of the three rivers.

02-13-2008, 09:35 PM	#44
Sapho Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane in the land of Oz Posts: 1,088	Well, there was this desicated body of a snake found with a strangly over developed laryinx. Unfortunatly it was found by a stoned beduin "somewhere' in the desert, only his camel really knows where, and its not telling. Nasty beasts, camels.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.