If the bible is 100% true, then every nation and religion on earth should include the Noah's Ark story as the beginning of their culture, civilization, and religion.
Seeing as to how this is not the case in real life, can we conclude that the Noah's Ark story was just a story that was never meant to be taken literally, or is this another example of "the devil" changing history to erode the credibility of the bible?
2007-12-19 03:05:47 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Proud Atheist, I would love to, but I can't... they're still after me, and they're going through other people to find me.
2007-12-19 06:08:17 · update #1
Mutations happen at a fairly consistent rate, on average.
Looking at the genetic diversity of the human race either:
The flood story is total mythology.
God caused incredibly rapid changes to human genetics up until very recently.
Considering that other culture have a continuous written record that spans the biblical record of the flood, and none of the scribes mention how damp it is getting, or that they need to stop writing while they drown . . . it is pretty conclusive that the flood story is mythology.
There are some facts that, if you close one eye, put your hand over half the information, and screw up the other eye so that everything is blurry, might possibly look like they support the flood mythology.
You just have to do this with genetics, linguistics, geology, paleontology, archeology, physics, chemistry . . . . and rationality.
But an all-powerful god can do anything, and it is not for us to question his methods. The ultimate fundie cop-out.
2007-12-19 04:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by Simon T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A number of cultures have flood myths, however that's where the similarity stops. Besides the time difference, they do not agree on the number of people (anywhere from 0 to 10+) the number of floods (often 2 or 3), whether a boat was involved or not or whether animals were saved or not. In other words, for the same reasons that Christians use to say that the Flood is not related to the epic of Gilgamesh, can be used to show that all the flood myths are not related to each other.
Besides the lack of commonality in myths, the Flood has a large number of problems with it happening, the most glaring one is that there is no evidence of a global flood.
2007-12-19 03:14:40 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
According to the Bible, all humans on earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-11). But today we have many different groups, often called ‘races,’ with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Many see this as a reason to doubt the Bible’s record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years. However, as we shall see, this does not follow from the biological evidence.
The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God’s command to ‘fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.1
2007-12-19 03:12:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
its like the story of Cain & Able. Cain rose up against his Brother & erassed his ***. God put a mark on Cain that showed everyone what he did, then Cain, later went to a "City" to find a wife. If Adam & Eve was the only 2 people on Earth & Cain & Able were their Sons, then where did the 'City" come from? There are so many loose ends in the Bible, its not funny. What we have is all we need. If someone from the past took away parts of the Bible, then woe to them! we will not be judged for those things that were removed, but we will be judged!
2007-12-19 03:16:36 · answer #4 · answered by Tobby 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That is just one of the many things that scream that the bible should not be taken literally!!
2007-12-19 05:34:01 · answer #5 · answered by taristidou 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now for my section i want to attraction to the attention of the Christians in yet another passage of the Bible, in the e book of Hebrews we study: a million. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the main extreme God, who met Abraham coming back from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2. To whom additionally Abraham gave a 10th element of all; first being by potential of interpretation King of righteousness, and after that still King of Salem, that's, King of peace; 3. devoid of father, devoid of mom, devoid of descent, having neither beginning up of days, nor end of existence; yet made similar to unto the Son of God; abideth a clergyman consistently. ( Hebrews 7:13) word this Priest Melchisedec "has neither beginning up of days, nor end of existence", in different words very logically we are in a place to assert that this fact is lots greater greater ideal than the fact meant uttered by potential of Jesus (that he's Alpha and the Omega). because of the fact alpha and Omega has a beginning up and end yet this Priest Melchisedec has no beginning up and no end, hence why Christians do not evaluate this Priest as God Almighty? because of the fact his superiority from Jesus isn't merely for his eternal existence yet additionally because of the fact he would not have a mom, Jesus had a mom, and he would not have a descent, Jesus had descents (2 genealogies in accordance to the gospels). So while Christians attempt to coach the divinity of Jesus by potential of the fact "Iam Alpha and Omega" i propose them to greater effectual seem on the fact of Melchisedec that's lots greater greater ideal than Jesus. even although, Christians do not help that Melchisedec is God. So there is not any huge deal while Jesus mentioned i'm Alpha and the Omega.
2016-10-02 02:53:05 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone you meet. Why is it so far-fetched to believe that all of mankind descended from Noah? The scientific society is telling us that we are all descended from an old skeleton dug up in sub-saharan Africa. Why can't that skeleton have been descended from Noah as well? Carbon dating has really messed up in the past, why should we believe in it?
2007-12-19 03:10:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
thats like asking who is easter bunnies father
2007-12-19 03:11:41 · answer #8 · answered by Cracker's back 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Pretty much everybody!!! If you chose not to believe OK. God bless you.
I chose to believe God whose word doesn't change but man's theory's change year after year.
2007-12-19 03:10:50 · answer #9 · answered by furgetabowdit 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
that was billions of years ago, it is possible (do have any clue how many kids people had back then?)
2007-12-19 03:10:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋