joelr
Well-Known Member
You know this? Okay. One question. How do you know this?
I mean the general universe, solar systems, clusters of galaxies, black holes, elements created in nova and supernova.
We can account for all these processes from the laws of physics.
Ot stories mirror Mesopotamian myths, Christianity are Persian/Hellenism. No science beyond what men already knew. Nothing but vague prophecies. /very similar to all other man-made religions like Vedic scripture. We have thousands of accounts of people making myths but claiming they are messages from God. All look the same, same science, same wisdom. All made by men.We disagree. However, what evidence do you have that they are made up by people?
Where have you been? That's been repeatedly done.
I don't see any wisdom in repeating, especially for joelr.
I study science and biblical history and archeology. I have never ever heard a scholar say we have a prophecy or some science that even slightly suggests considering the myths are true. Never. Not even the slightest hint of something supernatural.
I did read dozens of promises in the OT that didn't come true?
May I ask what is the point of your opinion?
Some of the details of the Noah story seem mythical, so many biblical scholars believe the story of Noah and the Ark was inspired by the legendary flood stories of nearby Mesopotamia, in particular "The Epic of Gilgamesh." These ancient narratives were already being passed down from one generation to the next, centuries before Noah appeared in the Bible.
"The earlier Mesopotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending a flood to wipe out humans," said biblical archaeologist Eric Cline. "There's one man they choose to survive. He builds a boat and brings on animals and lands on a mountain and lives happily ever after? I would argue that it's the same story."
The same account told from different cultures, and "colored" with their own beliefs.
Facts : 1) The account happened.
Not a fact. The Mesopotamian myth was written down, yes. It's a myth. A world flood has been ruled out by modern geological flood science. Didn't happen.
"Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.
Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly
Geochronology[edit]
This Jurassic carbonate hardground shows generations of oysters and extensive bioerosion, features incompatible with the conditions and timing postulated for the Flood.[7]
The alternation of calcite and aragonite seas through geologic time.[113]
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.
Paleontology[edit]
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.
eochemistry[edit]
Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[
Sedimentary rock features[edit]
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top
2) The Biblical account differs from the mythical flavors within the others.
Genesis was written using older myths to be the religious mythology of a new people. Like always it is not history but mythology. It was a copy of older flood stories written in 1200 BC. It isn't real.
Just like the Jesus savior demigod story was a different version (Hellenism/Judaism) Noah was a new flood myth (Mesopotamian/Israelite). It's the small details that show it was copied.
"
Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.
KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,
As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)
As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. "