Carrie

They said that there are actual ancient tablets (many of them) that tell a flood story, but these flood stories were written by other cultures, and were written far before the Noah's Ark story. And they showed these other tablets. So you can see them with your own eyes. They said the tablets are the SMOKING GUN to show that the Noah's Ark story was taken from these other stories. The other stories were myth, and so was the Noah's Ark story.

They said that there is no evidence of a global food, or even a flood that covered the entire region. Any floods that did happen, were not the floods that the Noah's Ark story was based on.

(Besides, if it was just a regional flood, why would Noah have had to gather all the animals? Animals from other regions could have just migrated to Noah's part of the world once everything dried up).

Also on this show, they said that Noah's Ark is NOT at the top of Mt. Ararat. The investigators said that the Ararat phenomenon is natural, and not the remains of the Ark.

Tercel

As someone who doesn't believe the Noah's Ark story, normally I wouldn't care. Except that you need to stop uncritically believing things just because you like their conclusions.

And this is relevant how?
If there was a flood is it suprising that lots of cultures have stories about it? Does lots of cultures having stories about it make it more likely mythological or untrue? Does the Biblical story being written latter than some of the others make it somehow less valid?

So? Literary dependence is no big deal. 's called "using sources". Since the writer of the Bible is writing years after the event, how can he not use sources?

?!!!!?
Proof by assertion?

I'm sure Noah would have had great fun starving while they migrated.

And of course since TV shows KNOW ALL, what THEY said MUST be correct...

Kosh

What about agreeing with something because it's presented logically and you see that it makes sense? Maybe you don't like that, but it does seem to be the same way that liberals like yourself claim to "interpret" which parts are true and which aren't...

It's significant because the fundamentalist stand is that Moses wrote Genesis after it was dictated by God. If we have a source that predates Genesis, then this clearly is not the case. Especially since the OT was written after the exile in Babylon, which is the source of the older story that Noahs ark is obviously based on.

In additon to this, the names have been changed from the Babylonian story. This shows that the story was redacted to blend in with the Iraelites. Either that or God just showed up and told the author the correct names? Yeah right, Occams Razor time.

You are right about this, fiction is fiction even if you have to borrow it from another culture!

This has nothing to do with any arguments. If it wasn't a worldwide flood, there is no point in building any ark, the stated purpose of which is to save the animals, not provide a close food source for Noah on his new lake.

Nobody made that assertion. The show interviewed experts in the area of geology and biblical studies.

Abel Stable

Well it should be taken for granted now that no t.v. show is able to present all the facts together. It would be a half hour slideshow with lightning fast narration and a blizzard of footnotes instead of credits.

Programs like Carrie is mentioning should hopefully spart interest rather than whet your appetite. I think I originally got hooked on reading sleep studies from (I think it was a) Discovery Channel show about this disc jockey in the 50's who decided to stay awake for as long as he can and ended up going looney for two weeks and suffered permanent brain damage. So don't forget to go to sleep tonight.

There are really quite an abundance of those bible investigation shows (even though i haven't had cable for about 6 month, so now I couldn't say). But I remember there was a whole series called something like "Jesus: fact or fiction" or "the Historical Jesus" on the History Channel maybe. They're fun to watch, but never seem to offer any new insights.

Vinnie

I think Tercel was correct in that Carrie might have uncritically accepted something seen on tv. But I think he might have overstated a few defenses.

That ruins all the fun though :-D

Watch it now!

Cambell's chicken soup was not in existence at the time!

Anyone who is not a wooden literalist might dispute that.

As a former local flood proponent this one seems easy to counter from an apologists perspective: Noah was a preacher of righteousness according to the NT. His efforts to build such a huge floating vessel would have attracted viewers whom he could have preached to and warned about the impending disaster. He may have even offered to take them with him if they turned from their ways or whatever. The apologists will say that God gave the people ample warning to repent through Noah's preaching before destroying them. God is patient with the wicked and always gives them a chance to repent. So the ark building is very consistent with God's character as presented by systematic theologians.

But there are insurmountable difficulties with the gen-flood story and that is why I reject it. I take it that is why Tercel does as well.

The better question to ask the liberals like myself is what do we make of Jesus' comments on Noah. Can they be traced back to Jesus? Did he take Noah & co as a literal people? Same thing with the garden story. Paul viewed Adam of Genesis as a historical person and even Jesus referred to the account

Vinnie

Volker.Doormann

Hi Carrie,

Since the beginning of this year, I wrote 47 postings to this forum mainly all on this subject (without any serious reply). Additionally I have given links to detailed background knowledge I have collected over many years. Please have fun with my pages in English language on doormann.org.

As you know, ignoring that what is, and despise that what is not, but burned in brains trough 'religious education', creates this shield to recognize simple truth. Religious dreaming in concert with a sleeping own consciousness is very comfortable to many people. Truth hurts.

Thank you for your grateful postings.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

Sorry for confusing. That, what I would say is: As you know, ignoring that what is, and believing that what is not, but burned into brains through 'religious education', creates this shield to recognize simple truth.

Volker

Carrie

Tercel,

Why should I stop uncritically believing things just because I like their conclusions? Christians do it all the time. (Hee hee).

As for most of the rest, I think Kosh gave a pretty good defense. Thanks Kosh.

As for my assertion that any floods that did happen were not the floods that the Noah's Ark story was based on: Well, none of the floods were sooo bad that Noah would have been unable to find land for over 150 days. Even his bird couldn’t find dry land. And for example, the Black Sea flooded at one time, but not so badly that the tops of the Ararat mountains were covered in water.

And no, Noah would not have starved. He could have eaten plants. Oh, but wait, there would have been no plants left either! So Noah would have had to gather all the plant species onto his boat too - all kinds of seeds, and then he’d have to plant them, or wait for dormant plants and seeds to grow. Plants and seeds couldn’t walk to the Ark themselves, like animals could, so Noah would have had to magically receive the seeds from God, or
gather all the seeds himself. And since God wiped out all living creatures, all the bugs would have had to go into the Ark also. Cockroaches would have walked right up into the Ark. (And I don’t know how slugs would have made it in). Lots of bugs eat plants, so either Noah would have had enough food left to feed the bugs, his family, and all the animals, or there would have to have been plants on land for them to eat.

And if you want to argue that plants and seed can survive underwater, an olive tree can make it, but most plants and seeds do not survive under water for very long, particularly grains. Grains absorb water and burst, or just simply rot. Try it. Also, the dirt would have been very salty due to the ocean water absorbing into the land. Not many plants like that environment. Growing plants would have been tough.

So Noah must have had enough food on the boat to eat, and would not have starved if he had to wait for animals to migrate to that region. He and his animals would have had to wait anyway for plants to grow.

And about the TV show being right, maybe it was. Those men know more than you and I. They personally viewed the top of Mt. Ararat by satellite, and determined that the image that looked like it could be a boat, was probably the result of rocks and shadows. Besides, the Ark would be buried under all that snow, not on top of the snow.

Also, a believer that tried to go up and see the “Ark” himself, fell down and died, and no one else is allowed to go up there. So if it IS there, your God doesn’t want us to see it. He doesn’t
want to give us any proof or good reason to believe. So that’s also why he gave us a really confusing Bible.

Ab_Normal

I'm shocked and amazed that there was a show on TLC that actually took a critical stance toward the Bible. And I missed it!

Tercel

Not so. God could quite easily have said "Yo Moses, I want you to include the story of the Ark in what you're writing 'cos it really happened. Use the account your friend's dad told him, but make the following corrections: XXX".

Hmm. .. dubious late-dating.

Which of course can be ruled out a priori, and then based on that assumption we have proved that the fundamentalists are wrong...

Interviewing some people who are proclaimed to be experts is not necessarily the same thing. Media reports are fairly infamous for giving unfair selections of their presentation of evidence and choice of "experts". "TV says so" is never a good reason for taking a position on controversial issues such as this.