• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Some remarks on Noah

rational experiences

Veteran Member
God never flooded the planet because animals had bad morals.

Plus, a competent God would have designed humans in a way that wouldn't require a reset or renewal. The story suggests God is incompetent.
Seeing science men quote they are God by owning what is God lying they proved their incompetence.

A planet by body type a God is a planet not a human. Pretty basic kindergarten science.

As science taught ice the saviour from the wandering asteroid star had flooded earth historic. It told them that ice in new earth formation on the body earth was its saviour.

From the wandering star advice.

It taught atmospheric new law as introduced by man of science gained flooding had saved animal and human genetics genesis.

Was always humans doing all assessments teaching all teachings.

So when science tried to theory the ark was real that created life they are the only liar in the review scientific readings.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
As for science, scientists can decide personally what they believe and make scientific papers about what they can show.
Science isn’t about any scientists writing what they believe, robocop.

If you think they can make something up because of something that they believe, then you really don’t understand what science is.

A scientist don’t just write anything he or she like or believe.

Before scientist even start writing something, there must be initial or preliminary observations of the phenomena that scientist wanted to understand.

Based on these initial observations, the scientist will then think of questions of WHAT this phenomena is, and HOW the phenomena work.

Then proposed possible answers to these questions, by explaining WHAT this phenomena is and HOW this phenomena work.

There may be further questions and proposed explanations if he managed to provide possible answers to the above WHAT & HOW, such as the possible applications the phenomena may have.

These proposed and possible explanations - the hypothesis - then needed to be tested, to see if the hypothesis is “true” or “false”.

The tests involved, are

(A) either by “discovering” evidence,

or (B) more controlled testings like performing lab experiments.​

Note that the test results of lab experiments (in B) are evidence too. Plus, there need to be multiple evidence, to determine if the hypothesis succeed or fail.

The points are, the proposed theory, must provide explanations as to WHAT the phenomena are, and HOW the phenomena work.

If the scientist cannot explain the HOWs, then the scientist should even bother to write a hypothesis.

Science is about providing testable knowledge (and about understanding the phenomena) that have been tested, and not about what the scientist believe from the religious scriptures or what he wishes to be true.

There are no evidence to support Genesis global flood. And even you think the flood was “local flood”, then the story of building an ark would be utterly pointless.

Like @Subduction Zone wrote, if the flood was locál, then it would be much easier to move his family out of danger, to new location to live. Noah didn’t even need to take so many animals, since new (safe) location could provide new food resources.

You walk a great distance in one year, even more in 5 or 10 years. It took Alexander the Great to march his army from Macedon to India, then back to Babylon in less than 12 years.

Noah had 100 years’ advanced warning. If the flood was local as you say, Noah and his family could have traveled on foot, anywhere in the world, if he had 100 years. This is why Noah building the Ark, so utterly senseless, when he could have easily walked out of area of local flood.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Science isn’t about any scientists writing what they believe, robocop.

If you think they can make something up because of something that they believe, then you really don’t understand what science is.

A scientist don’t just write anything he or she like or believe.

Before scientist even start writing something, there must be initial or preliminary observations of the phenomena that scientist wanted to understand.

Based on these initial observations, the scientist will then think of questions of WHAT this phenomena is, and HOW the phenomena work.

Then proposed possible answers to these questions, by explaining WHAT this phenomena is and HOW this phenomena work.

There may be further questions and proposed explanations if he managed to provide possible answers to the above WHAT & HOW, such as the possible applications the phenomena may have.

These proposed and possible explanations - the hypothesis - then needed to be tested, to see if the hypothesis is “true” or “false”.

The tests involved, are

(A) either by “discovering” evidence,

or (B) more controlled testings like performing lab experiments.​

Note that the test results of lab experiments (in B) are evidence too. Plus, there need to be multiple evidence, to determine if the hypothesis succeed or fail.

The points are, the proposed theory, must provide explanations as to WHAT the phenomena are, and HOW the phenomena work.

If the scientist cannot explain the HOWs, then the scientist should even bother to write a hypothesis.

Science is about providing testable knowledge (and about understanding the phenomena) that have been tested, and not about what the scientist believe from the religious scriptures or what he wishes to be true.

There are no evidence to support Genesis global flood. And even you think the flood was “local flood”, then the story of building an ark would be utterly pointless.

Like @Subduction Zone wrote, if the flood was locál, then it would be much easier to move his family out of danger, to new location to live. Noah didn’t even need to take so many animals, since new (safe) location could provide new food resources.

You walk a great distance in one year, even more in 5 or 10 years. It took Alexander the Great to march his army from Macedon to India, then back to Babylon in less than 12 years.

Noah had 100 years’ advanced warning. If the flood was local as you say, Noah and his family could have traveled on foot, anywhere in the world, if he had 100 years. This is why Noah building the Ark, so utterly senseless, when he could have easily walked out of area of local flood.
I said they can personally believe whatever they want, such as a God. But when they do science they have to use the scientific method.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science isn’t about any scientists writing what they believe, robocop.

If you think they can make something up because of something that they believe, then you really don’t understand what science is.

A scientist don’t just write anything he or she like or believe.

Before scientist even start writing something, there must be initial or preliminary observations of the phenomena that scientist wanted to understand.

Based on these initial observations, the scientist will then think of questions of WHAT this phenomena is, and HOW the phenomena work.

Then proposed possible answers to these questions, by explaining WHAT this phenomena is and HOW this phenomena work.

There may be further questions and proposed explanations if he managed to provide possible answers to the above WHAT & HOW, such as the possible applications the phenomena may have.

These proposed and possible explanations - the hypothesis - then needed to be tested, to see if the hypothesis is “true” or “false”.

The tests involved, are

(A) either by “discovering” evidence,

or (B) more controlled testings like performing lab experiments.​

Note that the test results of lab experiments (in B) are evidence too. Plus, there need to be multiple evidence, to determine if the hypothesis succeed or fail.

The points are, the proposed theory, must provide explanations as to WHAT the phenomena are, and HOW the phenomena work.

If the scientist cannot explain the HOWs, then the scientist should even bother to write a hypothesis.

Science is about providing testable knowledge (and about understanding the phenomena) that have been tested, and not about what the scientist believe from the religious scriptures or what he wishes to be true.

There are no evidence to support Genesis global flood. And even you think the flood was “local flood”, then the story of building an ark would be utterly pointless.

Like @Subduction Zone wrote, if the flood was locál, then it would be much easier to move his family out of danger, to new location to live. Noah didn’t even need to take so many animals, since new (safe) location could provide new food resources.

You walk a great distance in one year, even more in 5 or 10 years. It took Alexander the Great to march his army from Macedon to India, then back to Babylon in less than 12 years.

Noah had 100 years’ advanced warning. If the flood was local as you say, Noah and his family could have traveled on foot, anywhere in the world, if he had 100 years. This is why Noah building the Ark, so utterly senseless, when he could have easily walked out of area of local flood.
Science never existed.

It needed a human.

The conscious memory says so. Misinformed statement as science is artificially chosen now possessed some human beliefs today.

A human has to exist to exert their beliefs. Invention working is what you claim proves science as you destroy what naturally existed.

The modern thesis after Moses proved you wrong maths and machines and men's designs controlled by men's minds attacked life. Blew up machines. Attacked mountains.

Suns two laws how to convert earth mass was melt and crystal fusion into dusts.

Learnt.

After gold philosophy transmutations Moses event attacked everything as a world nation event.

Radiation out of control the UFO ark.

Known. Men caused it as you never owned anything by body other than self.

Outright lying everyday.

You caused ground dust fission in the environment. How you learnt new science.

New testimonials said so.

Lying is sciences status. The destroyer.

Pretty basic human teaching about human egotism.

Why science wanted you to believe the UFO ark created life. When the UFO ark was abducting minus of life by No Ah the breath.....water mass owning life by trees oxygenation.

You seem to forget animal human DNA left as ice melted as stable state removed. Flooding of burning earth heavens saved life by cooling function.

It was a teaching about what nuclear satanic science caused.

Relative advice the only reason DNA survived in a small human healthy status as water still had oxygen in it.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Science never existed.

It needed a human.
Of course it needs human.

Science is about people trying to understand the physical and natural world. Scientists tried to EXPLAIN if the physical or natural phenomena can be explained.

Science don't invent itself. The explanation is not going to exist without humans being involved in the explaining and testing a model.

You are being ridiculous, if you think science (scientific explanation, like the hypothesis or scientific theory) just appear from nothing.

In science,
  1. you would observe the natural phenomena,
  2. you then would attempt to explain what this phenomena is, how it might work, and if there are any applications to understanding the WHAT & HOW,
  3. follow by finding evidence - to test & see if the proposed explanation is valid or not.
Science is about knowledge gathering & evidence gathering, and you need humans to supply these information.

Engineers, doctors and other experts will try to make use of the sciences, hence sciences should have some applications in the real world.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The problems aren't about believing in god or in religion.

The problems are YOUR CLAIMS (from multiple posts of yours) that you have MANY EVIDENCE of SPIRITS or SOUL in the NDE experiences.

You haven't shown any such evidence. All you have testimonies of some people making claims. Testimonials are anecdotal evidence, and anecdotes considered to be not very reliable.

You can believe as you will, but those videos you have posted up, are not considered evidence, just anecdotes, people making claims of what they wanted to believe.

Those videos are not scientific method, robocop. And if you think it is scientific method, you really are clueless as to what the scientific method are.
I think you're replying to the wrong person.

I have no evidence of spirits, souls or NDE experiences.

I know of no testimonies I have presented.

I know of no videos I have presented.

I have a masters in applied math and physics.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I think you're replying to the wrong person.

I have no evidence of spirits, souls or NDE experiences.

I know of no testimonies I have presented.

I know of no videos I have presented.

I have a masters in applied math and physics.

Sorry, robocop. I am actually in the wrong thread. That’s embarrassing :oops:
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Of course it needs human.

Science is about people trying to understand the physical and natural world. Scientists tried to EXPLAIN if the physical or natural phenomena can be explained.

Science don't invent itself. The explanation is not going to exist without humans being involved in the explaining and testing a model.

You are being ridiculous, if you think science (scientific explanation, like the hypothesis or scientific theory) just appear from nothing.

In science,
  1. you would observe the natural phenomena,
  2. you then would attempt to explain what this phenomena is, how it might work, and if there are any applications to understanding the WHAT & HOW,
  3. follow by finding evidence - to test & see if the proposed explanation is valid or not.
Science is about knowledge gathering & evidence gathering, and you need humans to supply these information.

Engineers, doctors and other experts will try to make use of the sciences, hence sciences should have some applications in the real world.
Moses old testimonials known. Old pyramid system still built. The evidence attacked civilization was in plain view.

Greedy men however own a conscious group bullying tactic against our family lesson. A teaching. They turn you into slaves and kill you whenever they want.

So it needed community support. The everyday family member. Never poor...but tormented. As God had supplied everything for everybody.

Mutual.

The story taught says once you were equal. It was removed in two places.

From family support.
From gods support.

Taught.

So as one nucleAr blasting big bang law was melt of earths mass science activated the other nuclear law. Clear the unseen as it didn't exist. The reaction in nature.

The spirit conjured out of dusts z huge reaction yet image appeared in the cooling the state. Hence aliens inside machines is old machine image massed cause. Accumulated.

As God earth water space natural void vacuum evaporation by law had dealt completed earths converting.

Men of science went against God is the teaching as laws of God. History cosmic God once reacting.

Yet science was then taught the ground dust nuclear as new science. In that moment new ideas. Why science uses it today proving how close we have been living to destruction.

Water conditions the only reason we are still surviving.

As reaction is first with God. Not first with machine by laws.

Pretty basic human kindergarten science that said you would be unrealistic to practice said reaction.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Noah might have not known the flood would only be in Mesopotamia or survive it by ark to set a good example.
To know in science the total effect ends is to tell a conclusive appraisal.

In science it's called a beginning activated reaction to the end of activated reaction.

The theme Noah had not ended. It crashed into the mountain. Where it landed melting stone forming squaring stone ballast leaving eye of RA ark impression. Temple building decimated.

Cause of boarding being spirit body abducted water mass in two of every species ended. Life was saved. Lucky to still be alive.

That end was never the end of any reaction in scientific mentality. It was caused.

It was a Story.

However water could then relate atmospherically supportive to life after. Only as the radiation effect was stopped.

Why it still floods as the law flooding saved life at the ground from unnatural fallout burning gases.

As light inside earths atmosphere by law never travelled as the relativity teaching.

AH breath meant oxygenation conditions trees being the holy state of life's water.

No a negative stated categorically it was a man of science caused life attack as a minus state attack.

You always knew. How you preach teach is your belief and the choice as men of science. Groups have to agree first.

Men's choice not to believe it occurred.

Phenomena studies by men employed to document occurrences says otherwise.

Two different men's groups in science.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Noah might have not known the flood would only be in Mesopotamia

Sure it could be.

Noah couldn't have not known about how wide the extent of the flood, and mistakenly think the whole world was underwater...

...except for one essential thing that you have forgotten about.

NOAH didn't write any part of Genesis. You are making assumption that Genesis 6 to 8 were narrated by Noah himself.

Beside that. There are no Noah's version (or Genesis version) of the Flood story in the Early Bronze Age (c 3100 - c 2000 BCE), when Noah's flood supposedly occurred based on the calculation of years in Genesis (eg Genesis 11, the succeeding patriarchs after Noah) and on Exodus 12:40-1 (430 years) & 1 Kings 6:1 (480 years from the time of Solomon's 4th year reign when he started construction on the Temple) - which would have put the Flood between 2400 and 2300 BCE.

You don't find any actual writings of any book in the Old Testament, until the late 7th century, BUT MORE LIKELY in the 6th century BCE.

There are no version of Genesis existing in the 7th century BCE, but there is the chance that passage in Numbers 6 (eg the Priestly Blessing) existed in possibly as early the late 7th century, inscribed on amulet containing the silver scrolls (dated between 630 and 590 BCE), which was found in a cave at Ketef Hinnom.

This tiny scrolls are made out of silver, are the oldest evidence of OT writing. Not even the Genesis is older than these scrolls. You would only find scattered evidence in the 6th century BCE, and you will only more substantial works from the Greek translation - the LXX Septuagint, and in the scrolls from the Qumran caves, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Second, if the flooding did occur, do you understand mathematics (eg trigonometry and geometry) and the sciences of terrains and hydrology?

If the Flood did occur only in Mesopotamia as you say, as local flood as opposed to global flood, then given there are no navigation in the Ark's design (Genesis 6), if the water was great enough to lift the Ark, then it would stand to reason the Ark would float downstream, towards the Persian Gulf.

The currents of Euphrates and Tigris, and all the tributaries that feed these two main rivers, go from upslope to down, due to gravity, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

The Ark should have ended in the Persian Gulf if the flood started somewhere in Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumer and Akkad in the 3rd millennium BCE), not going up the Armenian highland, for the Ark to rest on mountains of Ararat.

The design of the Ark (again Genesis 6) also say nothing about propulsion, like masts and sails, or oars. So there are no ways that the Ark could have floated up the slope to increasingly higher land in Anatolia (Asia Minor, or today's Turkey).

And since the Ark of that size as narrated in Genesis 6, with all the people, animals, supplies of food and water, the Ark would have been very heavy.

And if you have learned anything from physics, the greater the mass, the more likely the heavy object go down the incline or slope, not up.

Like the global flood, the local flood scenario would also defy law of physics, like gravity and that water flow downwards, hence down the slope, not upwards towards the mountainous regions.

Third, a large part of Mesopotamia prehistory (from 6500 BCE to 3100 BCE) and history, showed evidence that people who lived in this region - the Mesopotamia - are based on agricultural farming, which in turn, developed urbanisation of towns and cities along these 2 rivers.

Because the water flowed downstream, there are nearly "annual" floodings in this region, which the people, including the Sumerians of 3rd millennium BCE, developed increasing advance method of farming.

For instance, the glaciers from the Armenian mountain range would melt during the Spring season, often causing flooding downstream.

But the water currents also caused erosion of banks of rivers, from the Armenian highlands, and the water will carry fertile loam downstream that become soil for farming crops in Euphrates and Tigris.

Plus the Neolithic people have learned to take advantages of annual flood, by diverting the water, in the basic form of irrigation. The Sumerians of the later period, also make use of the flood, by irrigating water to the fields to grow crops.

But sometimes, flooding become more severe, which would ruin crops and even leave devastation in towns and cities.

One such devastation occurred in the Sumerian city Shuruppak (today's Tell Fara). One king named Ubara-Tutu, was said to be the king before the flood, according to a couple of Sumerian King Lists, and only one of them, include the name Ziusudra - the Sumerian name of earliest flood myth (eg Eridu Genesis and the Death of Bilgames).

Ziusudra became Atrahasis in Old Babylonian literature (eg the Epic of Atrahasis) and Utanapishtim in Middle Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian literature (Epic of Gilgamesh). Ubara-Tutu was said to be Ziusudra's father in the later epics (Atrahasisa and Gilgamesh).

So, Shuruppak was centred of not only the Ziusudra legend, but the archaeological research in this area, does point to flood around 2900 BCE.

See -

Erich Schmidt, Excavations of Fara (1931), Museum Journal, 2, pp 193-217, University of Pennsylvania, and

Harriet P Martin, Settlement Patterns at Shuruppak, Iraq, vol 45, no 1, pp 24-31​

And see excavation footage, 1930: Fara, Tepe Hissar 1930 - Digital Collections - Penn Museum

Schmidt was one of the archaeologists involved in excavations in Iraq. The video has no audio, but it is what published in the Museum Journal (1931) that are of interest.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sure it could be.

Noah couldn't have not known about how wide the extent of the flood, and mistakenly think the whole world was underwater...

...except for one essential thing that you have forgotten about.

NOAH didn't write any part of Genesis. You are making assumption that Genesis 6 to 8 were narrated by Noah himself.

Beside that. There are no Noah's version (or Genesis version) of the Flood story in the Early Bronze Age (c 3100 - c 2000 BCE), when Noah's flood supposedly occurred based on the calculation of years in Genesis (eg Genesis 11, the succeeding patriarchs after Noah) and on Exodus 12:40-1 (430 years) & 1 Kings 6:1 (480 years from the time of Solomon's 4th year reign when he started construction on the Temple) - which would have put the Flood between 2400 and 2300 BCE.

You don't find any actual writings of any book in the Old Testament, until the late 7th century, BUT MORE LIKELY in the 6th century BCE.

There are no version of Genesis existing in the 7th century BCE, but there is the chance that passage in Numbers 6 (eg the Priestly Blessing) existed in possibly as early the late 7th century, inscribed on amulet containing the silver scrolls (dated between 630 and 590 BCE), which was found in a cave at Ketef Hinnom.

This tiny scrolls are made out of silver, are the oldest evidence of OT writing. Not even the Genesis is older than these scrolls. You would only find scattered evidence in the 6th century BCE, and you will only more substantial works from the Greek translation - the LXX Septuagint, and in the scrolls from the Qumran caves, the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Second, if the flooding did occur, do you understand mathematics (eg trigonometry and geometry) and the sciences of terrains and hydrology?

If the Flood did occur only in Mesopotamia as you say, as local flood as opposed to global flood, then given there are no navigation in the Ark's design (Genesis 6), if the water was great enough to lift the Ark, then it would stand to reason the Ark would float downstream, towards the Persian Gulf.

The currents of Euphrates and Tigris, and all the tributaries that feed these two main rivers, go from upslope to down, due to gravity, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

The Ark should have ended in the Persian Gulf if the flood started somewhere in Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumer and Akkad in the 3rd millennium BCE), not going up the Armenian highland, for the Ark to rest on mountains of Ararat.

The design of the Ark (again Genesis 6) also say nothing about propulsion, like masts and sails, or oars. So there are no ways that the Ark could have floated up the slope to increasingly higher land in Anatolia (Asia Minor, or today's Turkey).

And since the Ark of that size as narrated in Genesis 6, with all the people, animals, supplies of food and water, the Ark would have been very heavy.

And if you have learned anything from physics, the greater the mass, the more likely the heavy object go down the incline or slope, not up.

Like the global flood, the local flood scenario would also defy law of physics, like gravity and that water flow downwards, hence down the slope, not upwards towards the mountainous regions.

Third, a large part of Mesopotamia prehistory (from 6500 BCE to 3100 BCE) and history, showed evidence that people who lived in this region - the Mesopotamia - are based on agricultural farming, which in turn, developed urbanisation of towns and cities along these 2 rivers.

Because the water flowed downstream, there are nearly "annual" floodings in this region, which the people, including the Sumerians of 3rd millennium BCE, developed increasing advance method of farming.

For instance, the glaciers from the Armenian mountain range would melt during the Spring season, often causing flooding downstream.

But the water currents also caused erosion of banks of rivers, from the Armenian highlands, and the water will carry fertile loam downstream that become soil for farming crops in Euphrates and Tigris.

Plus the Neolithic people have learned to take advantages of annual flood, by diverting the water, in the basic form of irrigation. The Sumerians of the later period, also make use of the flood, by irrigating water to the fields to grow crops.

But sometimes, flooding become more severe, which would ruin crops and even leave devastation in towns and cities.

One such devastation occurred in the Sumerian city Shuruppak (today's Tell Fara). One king named Ubara-Tutu, was said to be the king before the flood, according to a couple of Sumerian King Lists, and only one of them, include the name Ziusudra - the Sumerian name of earliest flood myth (eg Eridu Genesis and the Death of Bilgames).

Ziusudra became Atrahasis in Old Babylonian literature (eg the Epic of Atrahasis) and Utanapishtim in Middle Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian literature (Epic of Gilgamesh). Ubara-Tutu was said to be Ziusudra's father in the later epics (Atrahasisa and Gilgamesh).

So, Shuruppak was centred of not only the Ziusudra legend, but the archaeological research in this area, does point to flood around 2900 BCE.

See -

Erich Schmidt, Excavations of Fara (1931), Museum Journal, 2, pp 193-217, University of Pennsylvania, and

Harriet P Martin, Settlement Patterns at Shuruppak, Iraq, vol 45, no 1, pp 24-31​

And see excavation footage, 1930: Fara, Tepe Hissar 1930 - Digital Collections - Penn Museum

Schmidt was one of the archaeologists involved in excavations in Iraq. The video has no audio, but it is what published in the Museum Journal (1931) that are of interest.

TLDR (too long didn't read)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
TLDR (too long didn't read)
Sorry.

In short, the middle part of the post, related to if there was a local flood, the flood water would have carry the Ark, down the incline of the terrains, eg down the slopes of the hills or mountains, or downstream of the rivers.

If the Ark did exist, it should have ended up in the Persian Gulf, that because of the natural incline of the terrains, and not up towards the Armenian highlands, and it certainly wouldn't have ended up on the mountains of Ararat!

Your claims that the Flood would only local one in Mesopotamia. But based on Genesis 8:4

Genesis 8:4 said:
4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

That's not scientifically possible, because there are other mountains that separate Sumer (lowland) from the "mountains of Ararat" - namely the Armenian highland.

The terrains of Mesopotamia tends to have greater upward gradients, the further you traveled towards Anatolian Turkey.

Your claim don't match where the Ark ended up. If the Flood did occur, and if it was local, the Ark should have floated to the Persian Gulf, and since Noah was onboard the Ark for about 1 year, he should have been in the India Ocean, NOT AT ARARAT!

Water don't make object float up the slopes, because that would defy the law of physics, gravity for one, hydrology another, and basic geometry of the terrain, yet another.

The Ark also don't have any propulsion system in its design (Genesis 6), like oars for rowing, or masts and sails.

So how would you expect the Ark to go upwards to the Armenian highlands (towards Ararat) and not downward to the Gulf and seas? Magic?

Is that better?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The 1st part of my long post, is about the Genesis wasn't narrated by Noah, nor by Moses, who by both Jewish and Christian traditions was said to be the author of both Genesis and Exodus.

But there are no existence of any biblical texts in the 3rd millennium BCE (hence Early Bronze Age), nor in the 2nd millennium BCE (hence the Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age).

The earliest Genesis that exist come from 6th century BCE, and later, eg Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran caves and from the Greek translation the (LXX) Septuagint, 3rd century BCE.

Without texts in the Late Bronze Age (c 1550 - c 1100 BCE), Moses being a likely author don't seem probable...

...most likely Moses and the exodus and the invasion of Canaan (Book of Joshua), didn't exist.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If humans said no AH negative in science and was told to build the wooden ark. Wood in nature is natural.

So it cannot be science.

If scientists state life was sacrificed due to holy tree of life wood oxygenation changes and men caused its loss lessening oxygens presence by not listening. It is the same old same old.

Men of science not listening. As Mr know it all never did. Listen to spirituality.

So if he advised self we were negating life's oxygen by sick human cell blood inheritance he knew.

Natural first healthy.
Sacrificed sick cells blood terms.

Type of destroyer personality seen expressed umpteen man times destroyer. Self destructive.

Pretty basic God advice science about natural observation first. Natural advice said don't do it. Yet you did.

Knew. What occultism is. Knowing science is causing evil phenomena attacks on life yet does it anyway.

O gods earths laws are cosmic. Machine reactions only controlled by men thinking pressing buttons.

If a human summarises a history and titles the descriptive outcomes. Did attack exist first the status science cause? Nor was it theoried for or wanted.

No.

So after destruction was gained it was given a descriptive title. A new story about all past causes.

Hence Noah causes to negate remove take aboard the spirit of life off all things by two was a loss not a creation. No. To negate.

However inventors claim they create. Never have they created.

Wrong word use so wrong belief inferred.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sorry.

In short, the middle part of the post, related to if there was a local flood, the flood water would have carry the Ark, down the incline of the terrains, eg down the slopes of the hills or mountains, or downstream of the rivers.

If the Ark did exist, it should have ended up in the Persian Gulf, that because of the natural incline of the terrains, and not up towards the Armenian highlands, and it certainly wouldn't have ended up on the mountains of Ararat!

Your claims that the Flood would only local one in Mesopotamia. But based on Genesis 8:4



That's not scientifically possible, because there are other mountains that separate Sumer (lowland) from the "mountains of Ararat" - namely the Armenian highland.

The terrains of Mesopotamia tends to have greater upward gradients, the further you traveled towards Anatolian Turkey.

Your claim don't match where the Ark ended up. If the Flood did occur, and if it was local, the Ark should have floated to the Persian Gulf, and since Noah was onboard the Ark for about 1 year, he should have been in the India Ocean, NOT AT ARARAT!

Water don't make object float up the slopes, because that would defy the law of physics, gravity for one, hydrology another, and basic geometry of the terrain, yet another.

The Ark also don't have any propulsion system in its design (Genesis 6), like oars for rowing, or masts and sails.

So how would you expect the Ark to go upwards to the Armenian highlands (towards Ararat) and not downward to the Gulf and seas? Magic?

Is that better?
People keep ignoring me like I know nothing.

In the Pearl of great price it says God took the Ark into his own hands.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
People keep ignoring me like I know nothing.

In the Pearl of great price it says God took the Ark into his own hands.
So tempting . . .

If you want to claim that the ark myth ever happened you would need to find some scientific evidence for it and be able to answer all of the evidence against it. I do not think that you claiming that your own God is a liar will cut it.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So tempting . . .

If you want to claim that the ark myth ever happened you would need to find some scientific evidence for it and be able to answer all of the evidence against it. I do not think that you claiming that your own God is a liar will cut it.
How am I supposed to prove Noah's Ark scientifically?
 
Top