Noah
August 16, 2013 at 2:01 am
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2013 at 2:35 am by AnaMejiaP.)
This is a response to @pineapplebunnybounce she had some questions about Noah and the flood. I will put an *asterisk* on pineapplebunnybounce questions and remarks.
Before I begin to answer some of your questions and concerns, I have to first establish how differently some theist and a non-theist see the Bible as. The non-literalist Christian might view the Bible as just a literacy device and historical (Yes its accurate depiction of History – I will provide links) Then we have a Christian like me who holds that the Bible stories from Creation – World Wide Flood – and among other things to be literal (not all things to me are literal in the Bible though) but to view the Bible in this faction means that I must also view the Bible in a supernatural sense. Even if you don’t believe in the supernatural there’s no denying the fact that the Bible does illustrate certain supernatural things. (I.E; God, talking donkey and of course the resurrection of Christ) Then, there’s a non-theist point of view that holds no supernatural entity in the Bible and more of logic, also most view the same establishment that the Bible is indeed historical and in literacy. (Secular universities today teach courses on the Bible literature) Now that I have establish that, I myself have to understand that your view of the Bible is not supernatural, so in might be difficult to explain my view of Noah’s ark and the flood. But that’s all I have.
By the way, I do not mean that the whole OT is fundamentally totally accurate of what its history claims to be (this of course is your view) like Genesis or Exodus which haven’t had any evidence for. But what I am saying is there external sources that states real names of cities and areas, kings, the cultural descriptions and the wars (Babylonian, Assyrian, etc) depicted in the Bible, which have already been verified.
*I'll contest the Noah's ark story:*
*1. He couldn't have gotten 2 of each species into the ark. Because to do so would require that he travel to many different climates. Islands especially have animals and plants that cannot be found elsewhere, for example, kangaroos and koalas in Australia. Madagascar also has a lot of species unique to that island. So if Noah were to actually do this, he'd have to travel all around and even pick up the penguins and polar bears at the poles. That would have taken him forever with the technology of the time, and he clearly didn't do that.*
Actually, Noah didn’t travel anywhere. The animals came to him. (Remember the supernatural thing I was talking about? Genesis 6:20) Noah spends about 100 years before the flood came in building the ark and during this duration the animals came to him. I say 100 years because when Noah was first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old and when he got into the ark he was 600 years old. Also some people even secular geologists believe that at the time the continents were together. To be honest, I am not too sure what to think about that. Plus God did not command that Noah to bring every known animal. The ark only carried air-breathing, land-dwelling, crawlers, and winged animals. Only the “couples” of each species, at the time the tremendous variation of species did not exist during the time of Noah.
*2. Supposing he did do 1., for the sake of the argument, he would require high tech air conditioning to keep all the animals healthy and alive during the flood. And these animals don't just eat anything, you feed them the wrong things and they'll get sick. What about the carnivores? Do they eat other animals? Are we suggesting that there's enough food to allow for such rapid reproduction?*
It is suggested that Noah brought juveniles and wouldn’t have brought adults inside the ark. This means that there was more space in the ark, enough food and a lot less waste.
*3. Even supposing all the animals had things to eat, who's going to have time to feed them?*
Noah and his family probably fed them, they did provide the food.
*4. According to http://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com/...ood-last/, the flood lasted for 1 year. This is madness, we're talking about a lot of water with only 1 place to go: evaporation. If this much evaporation took place, it'd form clouds and rain. (Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, the water couldn't have come from anywhere to begin with. We're talking about worldwide rain for 40 days and nights)*
Sorry but the link says it doesn’t exist? The flood came from two places, from the sky and underground. Which suggested that huge volcanic eruption, earthquakes, and a “fountain” of water were released.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...waters.asp he probably explains it better than I do.
*Some atheists are aggressive towards the religious for a good reason. Because religions have a kind of buffer in society where it's protected from reality and common sense, and it gets dangerous because everyone takes them seriously. Given my background, I don't care too much about Christianity, but everything about Islam is rather personal to me because I've been oppressed by their laws for a large part of my life. But for atheists who grew up in places where the major religion is Christianity, I think it's personal for some of them (especially for LGBT I would think?), too, I don't know. But it certainly doesn't make religion any less bullshit if we're aggressive about it.*
I think religion and organized religion are two different spectrums. For instant, I have a religion (obviously Christianity), I do read the Bible and practice my religion as best I can. I hold no tolerance for other “religious” people telling me how to practice my own religion if it’s contrary to what I read in the Bible. (Like religious people telling me I can’t drink, or watch Rated R movies, telling me “does that really Glorify God?”) I won’t even consider myself as a “religious” or “spiritual” person (I actually like the term Christian Hedonist) but the point, I might believe in my religion and hold what the Bible says to be literal and serious, but I might share the gospel with someone who is interested, do mission trips, “share Jesus love” but if one rejects it, there’s nothing I can do. What I said was done, and it’s time to move on.(which most Christian like to ignore) If the subject arises then there’s nothing wrong in answering or being challenged, but then it’s wrong when most Christians want to force a nation that doesn’t want anything to do with religion. So, that’s my problem with organized religion, they like to force it and by doing so we get hostility. We get misconception because “other” Christians have already ruined what a Christian should be. Like, Westboro Baptist Church that misinterprets a verse they become a cult that promotes hate and violence. Now, because of their example other Christians have to suffer from it. (Who are in fact genuine people with a genuine faith) I’m deeply sorry for what religion has done to you in the past.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/...flood1.htm
^ states a worldwide flood could have been possible. Also I think the second links holds a creationist view and a secular view, just to be fair
http://www.free-online.org/free-thinking...liable.htm
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-old...-verified/ (there’s things he says that you might disagree on, nonetheless he does provide the sources )
I have a question that I may elaborate more on later but first I will like to know your opinion on. Most secular scholars agree that many books of the OT were written after the fact, yeah? Since, Daniel and Ezekiel and other prophetic books were too “accurately demonstrated” that it must have been written afterwards. Here is my question, the authors who wrote the prophetic book, why state accurate descriptions of war and then we find in Ezekiel that he fails to “prophesy correctly” what had happen to Tyre? If the books were written after the events, then why make a mistake? They obviously knew what happen in the events but failed to do with this one? (I don’t know if this makes a whole lot of sense but I’m trying to put it into words)
Before I begin to answer some of your questions and concerns, I have to first establish how differently some theist and a non-theist see the Bible as. The non-literalist Christian might view the Bible as just a literacy device and historical (Yes its accurate depiction of History – I will provide links) Then we have a Christian like me who holds that the Bible stories from Creation – World Wide Flood – and among other things to be literal (not all things to me are literal in the Bible though) but to view the Bible in this faction means that I must also view the Bible in a supernatural sense. Even if you don’t believe in the supernatural there’s no denying the fact that the Bible does illustrate certain supernatural things. (I.E; God, talking donkey and of course the resurrection of Christ) Then, there’s a non-theist point of view that holds no supernatural entity in the Bible and more of logic, also most view the same establishment that the Bible is indeed historical and in literacy. (Secular universities today teach courses on the Bible literature) Now that I have establish that, I myself have to understand that your view of the Bible is not supernatural, so in might be difficult to explain my view of Noah’s ark and the flood. But that’s all I have.
By the way, I do not mean that the whole OT is fundamentally totally accurate of what its history claims to be (this of course is your view) like Genesis or Exodus which haven’t had any evidence for. But what I am saying is there external sources that states real names of cities and areas, kings, the cultural descriptions and the wars (Babylonian, Assyrian, etc) depicted in the Bible, which have already been verified.
*I'll contest the Noah's ark story:*
*1. He couldn't have gotten 2 of each species into the ark. Because to do so would require that he travel to many different climates. Islands especially have animals and plants that cannot be found elsewhere, for example, kangaroos and koalas in Australia. Madagascar also has a lot of species unique to that island. So if Noah were to actually do this, he'd have to travel all around and even pick up the penguins and polar bears at the poles. That would have taken him forever with the technology of the time, and he clearly didn't do that.*
Actually, Noah didn’t travel anywhere. The animals came to him. (Remember the supernatural thing I was talking about? Genesis 6:20) Noah spends about 100 years before the flood came in building the ark and during this duration the animals came to him. I say 100 years because when Noah was first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old and when he got into the ark he was 600 years old. Also some people even secular geologists believe that at the time the continents were together. To be honest, I am not too sure what to think about that. Plus God did not command that Noah to bring every known animal. The ark only carried air-breathing, land-dwelling, crawlers, and winged animals. Only the “couples” of each species, at the time the tremendous variation of species did not exist during the time of Noah.
*2. Supposing he did do 1., for the sake of the argument, he would require high tech air conditioning to keep all the animals healthy and alive during the flood. And these animals don't just eat anything, you feed them the wrong things and they'll get sick. What about the carnivores? Do they eat other animals? Are we suggesting that there's enough food to allow for such rapid reproduction?*
It is suggested that Noah brought juveniles and wouldn’t have brought adults inside the ark. This means that there was more space in the ark, enough food and a lot less waste.
*3. Even supposing all the animals had things to eat, who's going to have time to feed them?*
Noah and his family probably fed them, they did provide the food.
*4. According to http://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com/...ood-last/, the flood lasted for 1 year. This is madness, we're talking about a lot of water with only 1 place to go: evaporation. If this much evaporation took place, it'd form clouds and rain. (Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, the water couldn't have come from anywhere to begin with. We're talking about worldwide rain for 40 days and nights)*
Sorry but the link says it doesn’t exist? The flood came from two places, from the sky and underground. Which suggested that huge volcanic eruption, earthquakes, and a “fountain” of water were released.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...waters.asp he probably explains it better than I do.
*Some atheists are aggressive towards the religious for a good reason. Because religions have a kind of buffer in society where it's protected from reality and common sense, and it gets dangerous because everyone takes them seriously. Given my background, I don't care too much about Christianity, but everything about Islam is rather personal to me because I've been oppressed by their laws for a large part of my life. But for atheists who grew up in places where the major religion is Christianity, I think it's personal for some of them (especially for LGBT I would think?), too, I don't know. But it certainly doesn't make religion any less bullshit if we're aggressive about it.*
I think religion and organized religion are two different spectrums. For instant, I have a religion (obviously Christianity), I do read the Bible and practice my religion as best I can. I hold no tolerance for other “religious” people telling me how to practice my own religion if it’s contrary to what I read in the Bible. (Like religious people telling me I can’t drink, or watch Rated R movies, telling me “does that really Glorify God?”) I won’t even consider myself as a “religious” or “spiritual” person (I actually like the term Christian Hedonist) but the point, I might believe in my religion and hold what the Bible says to be literal and serious, but I might share the gospel with someone who is interested, do mission trips, “share Jesus love” but if one rejects it, there’s nothing I can do. What I said was done, and it’s time to move on.(which most Christian like to ignore) If the subject arises then there’s nothing wrong in answering or being challenged, but then it’s wrong when most Christians want to force a nation that doesn’t want anything to do with religion. So, that’s my problem with organized religion, they like to force it and by doing so we get hostility. We get misconception because “other” Christians have already ruined what a Christian should be. Like, Westboro Baptist Church that misinterprets a verse they become a cult that promotes hate and violence. Now, because of their example other Christians have to suffer from it. (Who are in fact genuine people with a genuine faith) I’m deeply sorry for what religion has done to you in the past.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/...flood1.htm
^ states a worldwide flood could have been possible. Also I think the second links holds a creationist view and a secular view, just to be fair
http://www.free-online.org/free-thinking...liable.htm
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-old...-verified/ (there’s things he says that you might disagree on, nonetheless he does provide the sources )
I have a question that I may elaborate more on later but first I will like to know your opinion on. Most secular scholars agree that many books of the OT were written after the fact, yeah? Since, Daniel and Ezekiel and other prophetic books were too “accurately demonstrated” that it must have been written afterwards. Here is my question, the authors who wrote the prophetic book, why state accurate descriptions of war and then we find in Ezekiel that he fails to “prophesy correctly” what had happen to Tyre? If the books were written after the events, then why make a mistake? They obviously knew what happen in the events but failed to do with this one? (I don’t know if this makes a whole lot of sense but I’m trying to put it into words)
Hope this helped.
