The dilema of Uncle onion. (page 2)

dark clouds

thanks for the info uncle onion:
ok here is my dig on the flood story, for its been like this for a while, how was the earth populated in 2370 years before jesus by 4 couples, 1 of which was probably too old to reproduce, was someone handing out viagra or was the birth cycle shorter back then? hhmm but wait wasnt their a tribe called israel somewhere in between slaughtering the neighboring nations, guess the census had their work cut out.
Farkel, never even thought about that ROFLMAO, so who exactly had shite detail?

Thirdson

Uncle,

Just be because Jesus quoted a well known fable to his Jewish listners doesn't make the story true.

If Noah's flood was really global why do we have polar ice caps with a 400,000 year history? How could they exist and at the same time have a world with an entirely different atmosphere and ecosystem capable of flooding the world? The fact that many different cultures have flood legends doesn't mean a Noah style flood. During the last ice age sea levels were lower than they are now. A land bridge existed bewteen Britain and France and the Black sea was not connected to the Mediterranean. The global rise in sea levels could be imbedded in many culture's oral history and give rise to the numerous flood legends today. That event coupled with local flooding could be the reason for the legends from Mesopotamia.

As for Moses, he didn't write all of the Pentateuch for sure and no-one knows the real individuals for the sources. What is known from an examination of the text is that there are 4 different sources.

Read the Flood account, there are two different accounts woven together. Read each event and you will see it described twice, from how God felt, to how many animals are taken in, from the time duration to the bird used to detect dry land. I was surprised at first but on re-reading the account it made sense.

I hope this helps.

Thirdson

'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'

uncle_onion

. It is admitted by all Bible scholars that these books could obviously, for some of the reasons you pointed out, not have been written entirely by Moses. Clearly, if Moses did write these books then some later writers and editors must have added to his writings. How does this fact put the inspiration of these books in question? For no one claims that Moses was the only man God used to write the Bible.

So if the bible is meant to be inspired, why did God allow it to be altered? What else was altered?

UO

aChristian

: So if the bible is meant to be inspired, why did God allow it to be altered? What else was altered?

Could it be that the Bible in its final "altered" form, which we now have, was the form that God wanted us to have, and that the "alterations" were by God's design and thus "inspired" by God?

Moridin

"Could it be that the Bible in its final "altered" form, which we now have, was the form that God wanted us to have, and that the "alterations" were by God's design and thus "inspired" by God?" - WHAT!?!?!?
I REALLY hope you're not serious!

mommy

I can honestly say I always believed in the flood.
The other night I was reading the kids nighttime story and Timmy brought me the book on Noah. Yes this is not the wtbts official story, but I started to read it to the kids. The more I read the faster I wanted to put it down. How could this really happen and could my kids see through this fable? I almost did put it down but decided against it and continued to read. Again my children did not fail me. After the story they started asking ALL kinds of questions. Mommy how was Noah able to save all the animals even the bugs? There was no food mommy for sooo long? Did they have refrigerators? or coolers? How did the dove find a tree in one week when it takes so long for trees to grow?
My mind was reeling and I couldn't answer....maybe Santa lives in the north pole as well.
wendy

Yadirf

Besides all the animals, Noah would have to have an eleven month food supply for all of them. How many cubic feet of space would that take, and how would he keep it from spoiling over an 11 month time span? -- larc

No, Noah wouldn't necessarily "have to have an eleven month food supply" for the animals ... not if God Himself miraculously supplied their needs, perhaps on a daily basis even. Certainly, He's capable of performing such a feat. Then there's also the possibility that God caused the animals to go into hibernation ... or something similar to when God "had a deep sleep fall upon [Adam]" in order to create Eve from Adam's rib.

It appears that Noah took along no food at all for the animals ... only food for himself and family. Thus, Genesis 6:21's "it must serve as food for you and for them" has reference to verse 18's "you [Noah] and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you". So, the food supply that Noah took aboard the Ark was not for the animals. The "them" spoken of in verse 21 had reference to Noah's family.

Yadirf

Edited by - Yadirf on 17 March 2001 4:27:43

Edited by - Yadirf on 17 March 2001 4:39:45

Edited by - Yadirf on 17 March 2001 4:42:9

Edited by - Yadirf on 17 March 2001 4:44:16

TR

Sitchin's answer for the animals on the ark is that no animals were on the ark, just DNA for each animal!

Hey aChristian and Farkel;

thanks for the info, I'll check it out. Sitchin's ideas are pretty wild, but very interesting. I admit that I don't know enough about science and ancient languages to give any credense to his ideas. I'm not making that mistake again! Once with the WTS was enough!

TR

Yadirf

Sitchin's answer for the animals on the ark is that no animals were on the ark, just DNA for each animal! --TR

But with reference to the animals, Genesis 8:19 says that "they went out of the ark" ... apparently while on their feet ... not as DNA being toted out by Noah. Too, in considering verse 20 wouldn't it be rather ridiculous to contend that, instead of the animals themselves, Noah offered "burnt offerings upon the alter" in the form of DNA?

Yadirf

Edited by - Yadirf on 17 March 2001 5:35:39

uncle_onion

No, Noah wouldn't necessarily "have to have an eleven month food supply" for the animals ... not if God Himself miraculously supplied their needs, perhaps on a daily basis even. Certainly, He's capable of performing such a feat. Then there's also the possibility that God caused the animals to go into hibernation ... or something similar to when God "had a deep sleep fall upon [Adam]" in order to create Eve from Adam's rib.

So what was the point of the ark and the flood? Why didnt God just wipe it clean and start again?Why bother with the fuss of the flood? If you are going to use the miracle arguement, then anything is possible! This is the kind of thinking that I cannot fathom out. People try to show the validity of something by defining it logically, then when this "logical reasoning" is shown to be ilogical, they say "well God must have done this or that for it to happen". Then what is the point of this thread. If we are to believe that God used miracles for the flood to happen,then we might as well stop this thread now.:-)

I have been in discussion with a christian friend about this and he tries to show me from history that the flood existed from Geology etc. But when I raise an objection to his reasoning, he then replies "well it what you out your faith in". Then why try and show me Archeaological evidence if it is a case of faith?

Uo (who doesnt know what way to turn now!)

The dilema of Uncle onion.

Share this