Fish must be very holy

[Drich]

Is about perception. Rather what the jew who penned this story perceives to be a mountain or a "tall hill."

In the hebrew the word in the story (gen7) is "har" it literally means high hills. Sometimes it is translated mountain.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...ongs=H2022

Harar is the word for mountain sometimes translated high hill.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...ongs=H2042

Why for the uncertainty? Because 5000 years ago they did not classify mountains as we do now. It was in the eye and words of the one telling the story.

Either way har was the lessor of har and harar. Just like hill is the lessor forum of mountain in the English.

Just please fucking stop and think about your delusion for a moment and stop embarrassing yourself. You're a grown adult, there's a multitude of reasons why grown adults don't believe in fairy tales like noah and his ark.

And what if by addressing each of those reason, and make each objection now plausible, would you believe or would you surrcumb to peer pressure? Seeing show your trying to employ peer pressure to get me to stop, I would tend to think so one like you will believe whTever the masses believe simply because you need to 'fit in.'

Good thing you weren't born in hitlers germany.

Baaa baaa.(that's the sound a sheep makes)

[Norman Humann]

So In Your opinion if one could flee to a uncovered mountain top, he could have survived the 40 days and nights of rain, 150 days befor the flood water began to recede, and the year year and 1/2 before the ground was dry again... My question to you is what did they eat for all that time?

Do you see your problem yet?

You gotta be trolling right now.

So in your honest opinion, surviving with two animals of every species on Earth for forty days on a boat is entirely plausible, but a goat surviving for the same amount of time on dry land that would have to be positioned only slightly higher than a fucking hill is impossible, because it wouldn't have anything to eat?

Well, Drich, care to enlighten us as to what did the fucking people on the boat eat all that time?
Or where is the evidence for that huge flood?
Or how did one man possibly gather two of every animal species on a boat without them killing him or one another?

Do you ever have any internally consistent thoughts, ever?

[TubbyTubby]

Just please fucking stop and think about your delusion for a moment and stop embarrassing yourself. You're a grown adult, there's a multitude of reasons why grown adults don't believe in fairy tales like noah and his ark.

And what if by addressing each of those reason, and make each objection now plausible, would you believe or would you surrcumb to peer pressure? Seeing show your trying to employ peer pressure to get me to stop, I would tend to think so one like you will believe whTever the masses believe simply because you need to 'fit in.'

Good thing you weren't born in hitlers germany.

Baaa baaa.(that's the sound a sheep makes)

If there had been no bible or any or written flood myths we would never have possibly concluded there had been a global flood from the evidence we see. Instead we would have come to the very same conclusion that science and thinking has given us.

It's not peer pressure, it's common fucking sense. Grow up little lamb.

[IATIA]

Well, Drich, care to enlighten us as to what did the fucking people on the boat eat all that time?

I, of course, do not believe the Noah's ark thing or the worldwide flood, however, if it were so, the food would have been the extra clean animals that were brought on board. Two pairs each of the unclean and 7 pairs each of the clean are what was brought onboard. The extra 5 pairs of the clean animals would have taken care of the carnivores and omnivores (and god's traditional BBQ afterwards), but the herbivores seem to have no food on board.

[Drich]

It wouldn't matter, drich. Atmospheric pressure (from your link) is defined as the weight of air from sea level to the top of the atmosphere. As water level increases, the atmosphere doesn't get taller. If sea level were to be re-established at the top of Mt Everest, you'd be five miles closer to the top of the atmosphere, so the pressure would be correspondingly less - you don't get five more miles of atmosphere to compensate.

So.. They don't have the term 'displacement' where you live?

If so, then know if you add 5 miles of water to the circumference of the earth then the atmosphere is also displaced 5 miles.

Meaning because water is more dense than air it would now occupy the space that was once occupied by air, thus displacing the air up wards. So I. Effect you would get 5 more miles of atmosphere because 5 miles of water displaced it.. What was 5 miles above sea level becomes sea level.

If you do not think this is th case and account for the displaced air. Where does it go?

Your earlier point about the definition of 'har' fails as well, since the verse in Genesis includes all mountains 'under the heavens', not just the ones the myth-makers knew about.

Boru

Oh, my..

Take out the word mountain in that passage and add the word har. Now the passage should read that all the har was covered by 15 cubits of water yes?

Now define har. Because whatever har is was covered by 15 cubits.

As per the links I provided har is most often times translated tall hill sometimes translated mountain.

The opposite of this is the hebrew word harar. It is primarly translated mountain. But sometimes translated tall hill. Why?

BECAUSE ANCIENT HEBREWS DID NOT MEASURE MOUNTAINS AS WE DO!!!

They could only guesstimate. When we say mountain we mean a natural earth formation rising 1000 ft above sea level.

When one of them says mountain (harar) it would mean the author thought it was taller than the standard measure of a hill (Har)

So when we translate into English with all of our modern maps and measures as our standards we find that sometimes when a writer references a har it is technically a mountain, so the translator says mountain. Like wise in reverse sometimes a writer would identify a harar, and it would turn out to be a hill or range of hills.

In the case of Genesis however the author had access to both har and harar to describe how the flood encompassed the earth. He did not use the term harar to describe what happened, he used the term har.

This means my explaination here as well stands.

[LastPoet]

All this from a necropost

[Nope]

Well, Drich, care to enlighten us as to what did the fucking people on the boat eat all that time?

I, of course, do not believe the Noah's ark thing or the worldwide flood, however, if it were so, the food would have been the extra clean animals that were brought on board. Two pairs each of the unclean and 7 pairs each of the clean are what was brought onboard. The extra 5 pairs of the clean animals would have taken care of the carnivores and omnivores (and god's traditional BBQ afterwards), but the herbivores seem to have no food on board.

The plants would have died out. There would be no trees or vegetation left. Even if they survived on the boat, how would they survive on the land? The land would be barren once the waters disappeared.

[IATIA]

If you do not think this is th case and account for the displaced air. Where does it go?

The pressure would push the air further into the upper atmosphere where the gravity would not be sufficient to hold it back at those pressures and allow the air to dissipate into space. The air would not get denser, it would still be subject to gravity and when the waters receded ... oops, where is all our air we had? It will not come back.

[Drich]

You gotta be trolling right now.

why because you have read the story for yourself and do not understand it?

So in your honest opinion, surviving with two animals of every species on Earth for forty days on a boat is entirely plausible,

actually there were upto 7 pairs of animals depending on their status with God. Read Genesis 7

but a goat surviving for the same amount of time on dry land that would have to be positioned only slightly higher than a fucking hill is impossible, because it wouldn't have anything to eat?

put any animal out in the rain 40 days and nights (where in that region temps can drop below freezing every night let alone a rainy one) and I would say yes it's chance at survival drops to 0 after a day or two.

Well, Drich, care to enlighten us as to what did the fucking people on the boat eat all that time?

Dragons, pixies, unicorns, and dinosaurs appearently...
Or if you want a biblical answer gen 6:21

Or if you want a "Spirit filled observation." The story of the ark is not about how man saved the planet from an angry God, but how God used the faith and works of one man's to justify saving and sustaining what this world needed to survive the flood.

Or where is the evidence for that huge flood?

its in the strata.
Most people assume this flood worked like any other. Water from point a washes to point b carring debris. It would be like taking a bucket of water and sand and dumping it on the ground casting what was contained in the bucket across a large area. However this flood did not occour that way. Water came from the ground up.
That would be more like filling your bucket with water and sand again, but instead of dumping it out, poking a small hole in the bottom and let it all drain out slowly.

This would result in The strata remaining intact for much of the world, just as it is now.

Or how did one man possibly gather two of every animal species on a boat without them killing him or one another?

again read the story. Gen 7 God brought the animals, all noah did was lead them on the boat.

Do you ever have any internally consistent thoughts, ever?

just because not all people think in the little boxes you find yourself in does not mean they are smaller than you.. If you were to maybe open up one of those boxes from time to time, you might find that you, your box and everything in it is and always has been wrong.
But, hey even if your wrong, you have pop culture supporting your beliefs. (the world is flat) [/quote]So what could possibly be wrong with that?

---

If you do not think this is th case and account for the displaced air. Where does it go?

The pressure would push the air further into the upper atmosphere where the gravity would not be sufficient to hold it back at those pressures and allow the air to dissipate into space. The air would not get denser, it would still be subject to gravity and when the waters receded ... oops, where is all our air we had? It will not come back.

So it is your expert opinion, increasing the world's circumference by 5 miles in basically all direction would have absolutly no Impact on the earth's gravity?
If so you need to userpt enstiens theory of relativity, and all the garbage about gravity being a product of the curvature of space time, and writer your own theory of relativity. (But if idk enstien was right it would explain how say a planet who's circumference increased 5 miles in all directions would create a greater gravity well in space time.)

Plus who is to say out atmosphere wasn't more dense pre flood? Maybe it was 15 psi rather than 14.7

---

I, of course, do not believe the Noah's ark thing or the worldwide flood, however, if it were so, the food would have been the extra clean animals that were brought on board. Two pairs each of the unclean and 7 pairs each of the clean are what was brought onboard. The extra 5 pairs of the clean animals would have taken care of the carnivores and omnivores (and god's traditional BBQ afterwards), but the herbivores seem to have no food on board.

The plants would have died out. There would be no trees or vegetation left. Even if they survived on the boat, how would they survive on the land? The land would be barren once the waters disappeared.

Oh, noes I didn't think of that!


Because everyone knows seeds from PLANTS all dissolve in water, and even more, wont grow in the wet ground!

Oh, wait I was thinking of cotton candy. That's what you must have been thinking about too.

Cotton candy dissolves in water and can grow in wet dirt. Yeah, cotton candy. You scarred me whew!

[Norman Humann]

why because you have read the story for yourself and do not understand it?

Is there really that much to understand about a myth?

actually there were upto 7 pairs of animals depending on their status with God. Read Genesis 7

Actually that only proves my point further.

put any animal out in the rain 40 days and nights (where in that region temps can drop below freezing every night let alone a rainy one) and I would say yes it's chance at survival drops to 0 after a day or two.

That region? Wasn't god supposed to flood the entire Earth? And if the temperature drops below freezing, it's not rain but snow, which works against the flood, since the surface would freeze.

Dragons, pixies, unicorns, and dinosaurs appearently...
Or if you want a biblical answer gen 6:21

So not only were there multiple animals from every single species on the planet, but tons of food to feed them as well for such a long period of time? That's one big fucking boat.
And since we're on that topic, where did all the excrement go?

Or if you want a "Spirit filled observation." The story of the ark is not about how man saved the planet from an angry God, but how God used the faith and works of one man's to justify saving and sustaining what this world needed to survive the flood.

If the world was flooded for such a long time, all the plants would die. it wouldn't matter even if the animals and Noah survived, because they would come back to a totally dead place.

its in the strata.
Most people assume this flood worked like any other. Water from point a washes to point b carring debris. It would be like taking a bucket of water and sand and dumping it on the ground casting what was contained in the bucket across a large area. However this flood did not occour that way. Water came from the ground up.
That would be more like filling your bucket with water and sand again, but instead of dumping it out, poking a small hole in the bottom and let it all drain out slowly.

This would result in The strata remaining intact for much of the world, just as it is now.

Citation needed.

again read the story. Gen 7 God brought the animals, all noah did was lead them on the boat.

Ohh, right! Because every logical gap in your cute little story can be filled wih saying "god did it". Why are we having this argument at all if you can just make all the doubts fade away with "don't question it, it's gawd!"? Look, at least try to stay consistent. If you want to be scientific, be scientific. If you want to preach, preach. But don't mix the two, because hey don't go well together. You can't just fill every gap in your theory with god and expect rational people to accept your claims.

just because not all people think in the little boxes you find yourself in does not mean they are smaller than you.. If you were to maybe open up one of those boxes from time to time, you might find that you, your box and everything in it is and always has been wrong.
But, hey even if your wrong, you have pop culture supporting your beliefs. (the world is flat) So what could possibly be wrong with that?

On the contrary, Drich, I question what I believe. The irony of what you said is baffling. You're the one who goes to all this trouble and makes all these mental gymnastics to preserve your beliefs. And what do you mean by saying the popular culure believes the Earth is flat? Forgot to take your pills again?