Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Bible tells us the Ark of Noah landed on Mt. Ararat.
1. The bible's chock-full of contradictions and errors. Proven. Too easily proven, in fact! That must be an ongoing embarrassment for fundy Christians everywhere, huh? Their inerrant bible. Hee hee...
2. "It now appears the Bible was correct." "It now appears"? Where? Oh. Must'a happened overnight. Wow! First GORE™ * of the day! Congrats, Tom!
3. "If the Bible was only a collection of urban legends, we would not be having people returning from Mt. Ararat asking others now to go back with them to see the Ark of Noah."
So: You also don't understand basic human nature and greed, now do you, Tom? (Warning: you will have to eat your hat on this one.)
______________
GORE™ = Gratuitous (or "Gross") Over-Reaching Exaggeration. Now a well-documented & predictable characteristic of this particular poster, in all of his religious determinations.
We know the Ark is on Mt. Ararat because the Bible told us it landed there. In the past when others have doubted the accuracy of such Biblical statements, time and historical discovery always reveals the Bible as being correct.
When the Bible tells us a 1,000 years is equal to one of God's days, that has nothing to do with a comparison to eternal time. The 1,000 years is required not only to understand God's time in creation, yet also to understand God's Biblical prophecies.
I see. What I find consistent about your posts is how you ignore major points raised by others, or how you take things completely out of context and twist things around in order to suit your own fancy.
I hate to shake up your notion, but there has been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PROVEN about the claim of finding the Ark on Mt. Ararat (greater) that's anything other than the say-so of those that have made the claim. And yet, you take such claims to be as good as gospel truth. Yep, it's up thar awright. Them thar fellers say they found it, and took sum reel nice pitchers an' fuzzy videeos of the inside of it. Yep, thet's good eenuff fer me! It's jest the same as if God himself said it.
Once again, you repeat, "We KNOW the Ark is on Mt. Ararat because the Bible told us it landed there." And the Bible told us is was the mountain you keep referring to? Genesis 8:4 (KJV) And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
It says "MOUNTAINS". That's a plural word, not singular. The Bible DOES NOT specifically say which mountain.
Further, there may have been a translational error of the word "Ararat". Turkish tour guide, Barak Sansal, has this to say about Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (highlighted for emphasis):
Quote:
The story of Noah's ark, as it is told in the Bible, is a reworking of an earlier Babylonian myth recorded in the Gilgamesh Epic. The hero of the earlier version is one Utnapishtim, the favorite of Ea, the god of wisdom. It seems probable that the Babylonian story was based on an unusually devastating flood in the Euphrates (Firat) River basin, and that the ark in it grounded on the slopes of one of the Zagros mountains. The biblical word that we read as "Ararat" could as well be read "Urartu"; the text has merely "rrt" and the proper vowels must be supplied.
Urartu was the name of a historical kingdom, but the word also meant "a land far away" and "a place in the north." So, while Buyuk Agri Dagi is a spectacular mountain and not a difficult one to climb for those experienced in high altitude exercise, it still seems less than likely that Noah's Ark will be found there. That doubt does not detract from the continuing interest in it, nor from the important achievements of archaeologists in deepening our understanding of the Old Testament.
Of course I have complete confidence you'll dismiss Mr. Sansal and say he ain't no reel Christian an' he might even be one o' them heathens doomed to eternal damnation.
1000 YEARS = 1 DAY / 1 DAY = 1000 YEARS
If we are to take your personal interpretation about Time, that 1 creation Day (God's time) literally means 1000 years (human time), then you run into a big problem. If God's reckoning of a day is 1000 years, it would mean there are limits of time even for God. It would mean that God has a yesterday. What kind of day?
The point is that the description of 1000 years = a day was written at a time in human history when people had no comprehension of really large numbers, such as a billion. Using the number 1000 would have been easier for people to comprehend as an example of large time scales.
And there's a very good reason for that. People alive at the time the example was given, understood time as based on the rhythm of the rising and setting of the sun to the next rising of the sun. That's what a day was. Years were determined by the rhythm of regular seasonal changes.
If we are to assume that the text literally means 1000 years = a day, then we run into another problem. In the Genesis account of creation, during the first few days, there was no Earth, no rising and setting sun, no stars in the sky. There was nothing to relate to in terms of describing time as we do here on Earth. What kind of days or years existed before there were any days or years? To say 1000 years = one day is pretty meaningless, apart from simply being an example people back then could understand that time has no meaning to God. And if time has no meaning to God, then you are completely wrong, and indeed it would've been used as an example to illustrate a concept of eternity.
All good points,NB, but lost on the intransigent for sure.
I particularly like the comment about limitations to God's time. After all, why did it take Him that long? Just to satisfy future logical inquiry? I don't care if He had an infinite number of wheelbarrows or shovels: He could not have built the entire limitless universe all by himself. It had to have happened by sheer molecular interaction, attractions and repulsions and time. Lots of time.
I mean, by definition, if it did take Him 6000 God-Years, that means He had a start time, then some work time, and then, later He finished it. How so, given that there's no end to the universe? How do you finish the unfinishable, pray tell?
Christians have this nasty habit of trying to validate their beliefs with scientific logic, but then, when cornered by it, they backpedal furiously by auto-reverting to "Goddunnit, gohl-dang it!" and then tossing in a few ad hominems about arrogant, assumptive scientists just to ice their cake.
You cannot have it both ways. If you're going to refute our use of simple math, logic and common sense, you cannot then hope to use it yourself and be believed.
Of course, I know you could care less about believability as regards us atheists. It's only important when recruiting fresh, tithing meat for the congregation, but nowadays you've got to go trolling in the shallow end of the literacy pool to find people who will buy into anything you toss at them. The spiritually starving, as it were.
Well, you get what you troll for, huh? Salmon are always harder to catch than catfish.
For some people historical evidence will always be ignored, and dismissed. Or consider it absurdities. And such people will have to spend their lifetimes calling all of this mounting evidence fake, and eveyone else that presents it, nutjobs and liars.
Tom tom, you post links to lame sites with zero creditability, then insinuate that because they are summarily dismissed that we are nutjobs. Dude, that site isn't worth the electrons to transmit it, and offers nothings but the delusions of someone even more delusional than you, if that is possible.
All good points,NB, but lost on the intransigent for sure.
Exactly right. Still, when someone comes up with absurdities, then either ignores the point or hopscotches around twisting things out of context, it behooves a person to set it straight, even if it is just a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
I particularly like the comment about limitations to God's time. After all, why did it take Him that long? Just to satisfy future logical inquiry? I don't care if He had an infinite number of wheelbarrows or shovels: He could not have built the entire limitless universe all by himself. It had to have happened by sheer molecular interaction, attractions and repulsions and time. Lots of time.
You're right about that too. LOTS of time. Why take 6,000 years to do something when it could instantly be a finished work? Our good friend, however, seems to prefer placing himself up on the lofty pedestal and distance himself away from any semblance of common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Well, you get what you troll for, huh? Salmon are always harder to catch than catfish.
Yep, and if a person is going to play mind games with the big boys, it's probably a good idea to have some facts straight before taking on the task, something our friend tends to avoid like the plague. It's much easier to fish at the other end of the spectrum in the wading pool.
But I have to admit that when various groups of people make claims like finding the Ark, there are plenty of other people who are more than willing to start blindly throwing money at them. Who needs proof when loads of absurd photos, fuzzy videos, color illustrations, and imaginative tales will do the trick? 99% certain it's the Ark? I figure it won't be long before that drops down to, oh say somewhere around 0%. And no doubt someone will come up with another finding of the Ark at some other location. Maybe I should start planning a fund raiser for an expedition to locate the actual skeletal remains of Adam and Eve. I don't want to give away too many details, but I promise to provide plenty of proof in the way of posting photos and videos on the Internet.
Tom tom, you post links to lame sites with zero creditability, then insinuate that because they are summarily dismissed that we are nutjobs. Dude, that site isn't worth the electrons to transmit it, and offers nothings but the delusions of someone even more delusional than you, if that is possible.
I never called anyone a nutjob, or a liar, that was a wrong assumption made by you. And whatever you want to say about the web sites I have posted, the evidence still remains, and none of it has been dismissed by anything even close to a scientific review. And that is because such evidence is simply ignored by those who would like to pretend it does not exist. And those who (REFUSE) to do such a review, are truly the ones who are living in a delusion. How can you come here and suggest this evidence has been dismissed, when those from your side refuse to consider it? It appears all they need to do is have a negative personal opinion about such evidence, and that is considered their scientific review.
I see. What I find consistent about your posts is how you ignore major points raised by others, or how you take things completely out of context and twist things around in order to suit your own fancy.
I hate to shake up your notion, but there has been ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PROVEN about the claim of finding the Ark on Mt. Ararat (greater) that's anything other than the say-so of those that have made the claim. And yet, you take such claims to be as good as gospel truth. Yep, it's up thar awright. Them thar fellers say they found it, and took sum reel nice pitchers an' fuzzy videeos of the inside of it. Yep, thet's good eenuff fer me! It's jest the same as if God himself said it.
Once again, you repeat, "We KNOW the Ark is on Mt. Ararat because the Bible told us it landed there." And the Bible told us is was the mountain you keep referring to? Genesis 8:4 (KJV) And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
It says "MOUNTAINS". That's a plural word, not singular. The Bible DOES NOT specifically say which mountain.
Further, there may have been a translational error of the word "Ararat". Turkish tour guide, Barak Sansal, has this to say about Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (highlighted for emphasis):
Of course I have complete confidence you'll dismiss Mr. Sansal and say he ain't no reel Christian an' he might even be one o' them heathens doomed to eternal damnation.
1000 YEARS = 1 DAY / 1 DAY = 1000 YEARS
If we are to take your personal interpretation about Time, that 1 creation Day (God's time) literally means 1000 years (human time), then you run into a big problem. If God's reckoning of a day is 1000 years, it would mean there are limits of time even for God. It would mean that God has a yesterday. What kind of day?
The point is that the description of 1000 years = a day was written at a time in human history when people had no comprehension of really large numbers, such as a billion. Using the number 1000 would have been easier for people to comprehend as an example of large time scales.
And there's a very good reason for that. People alive at the time the example was given, understood time as based on the rhythm of the rising and setting of the sun to the next rising of the sun. That's what a day was. Years were determined by the rhythm of regular seasonal changes.
If we are to assume that the text literally means 1000 years = a day, then we run into another problem. In the Genesis account of creation, during the first few days, there was no Earth, no rising and setting sun, no stars in the sky. There was nothing to relate to in terms of describing time as we do here on Earth. What kind of days or years existed before there were any days or years? To say 1000 years = one day is pretty meaningless, apart from simply being an example people back then could understand that time has no meaning to God. And if time has no meaning to God, then you are completely wrong, and indeed it would've been used as an example to illustrate a concept of eternity.
This is a perfect example why you guys miss so much when it comes to Scripture. You quoted Genesis 8:4. And then stated the verse in question only said that the Ark rested on the (mountains) of Ararat. And because of this, you now believe Scripture is suggesting that the Ark could be on any number of mountains. Of course, if you had actually taken the time to read verse 5, you would of understood that the Ark landed on the highest mountain, of the mountains of Ararat.
5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
The Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat on the (seventh month) yet the tops of the other mountains were not seen until the (tenth month). Which means the Ark landed on the highest mountain. Which just happens to be Mt. Ararat.
Again, your link comes from the fundamentalist creation ministry & can't possibly be taken seriously.
And again, the evidence is there for all to see. Believers in evolution have been invited to consider it. Appears none of them have done so. WHY IS THAT?
Oh that's right, such evidence can't be taken seriously, because everyone knows that fundamentalist are liars? And believers in evolution only speak the truth?
Oh that's right, such evidence can't be taken seriously, because everyone knows that fundamentalist are liars? And believers in evolution only speak the truth?
ZING!!!! I do believe you have it at last old thing!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
