Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[FlyersFan]

The problem is that the Bible doesn't explicitly describe the shape of the planet.

Just the regions familiar to its authors.

So like you suggest, the notion of a global flood can simply be understood as a regional flood by today's standards. 

Makes sense to me, and probably made a modicum of sense back then.

But they were working with a somewhat limited view, and hence the confusion that can arise.

People claim, without any evidence, that the Noahs Ark story is based on real events.
That's just people making excuses.
Just because there were regional floods does not mean that the story is based on them.
The bottom line is that the story is false.
There was no 'noah', and God didn't talk to anyone.
To read the story as literal truth is to not be reading the bible correctly.
And it's also flushing common sense down the toilet.

[andy06shake]

People claim, without any evidence, that the Noahs Ark story is based on real events.
That's just people making excuses.
Just because there were regional floods does not mean that the story is based on them.
The bottom line is that the story is false.
There was no 'noah', and God didn't talk to anyone.
To read the story as literal truth is to not be reading the bible correctly.
And it's also flushing common sense down the toilet.

What about Moses, according to the Bible, God spoke directly to him, did he not? 

Quite a few "inconsistencies" with the tale of Noah's ark, as you well know.

I mean, how many times was that dance done at the old ATS, and in how many different ballrooms?

Quite a few i seem to recall and then some. 

[3rdrockfrmsun]

There’s no hard proof that one man named Noah ever lived, but the story almost certainly comes from a real event that the ancient world remembered. Archaeology shows massive floods around Shuruppak, Kish, and Ur about 5,000 years ago, and the Sumerian King List even says, “Then the flood swept over.” Older versions of the story name the survivor as Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim — different names for what’s basically the same man. The Hebrews just carried that memory forward and framed it as a covenant between God and humanity. So maybe Noah wasn’t a single historical person, but the last echo of someone real who lived through a disaster big enough to shape human history.

[Roma]

People claim, without any evidence, that the Noahs Ark story is based on real events.
That's just people making excuses.
Just because there were regional floods does not mean that the story is based on them.
The bottom line is that the story is false.
There was no 'noah', and God didn't talk to anyone.
To read the story as literal truth is to not be reading the bible correctly.
And it's also flushing common sense down the toilet.

Slippery slope you have there.  You can't explicitly say there was no Noah, because you have no proof that he did or did not exist.  You have a choice to believe and well, that's religion in a nutshell.

Noah had three sons named Shem, Ham and Japheth.  Abraham was descended from Shem.  To deny the existence of Noah, you must also deny the existence of Shem.  Follow the logic and no Shem, no Abraham.  No Abraham and well, down the slope you go.

[FlyersFan]

What about Moses, according to the Bible, God spoke directly to him, did he not? 

God CAN talk to people.
But in the case of Noah, He didn't.
There was no Noah.
The story of Moses and Exodus is full of holes.
Exodus, as the bible is written, can be disproven.
But we can't disprove Moses existed.
So in this case it's a maybe it did happen and maybe it didn't.

[FlyersFan]

Slippery slope you have there.  You can't explicitly say there was no Noah, because you have no proof that he did or did not exist.  You have a choice to believe and well, that's religion in a nutshell.

Noah had three sons named Shem, Ham and Japheth.  Abraham was descended from Shem.  To deny the existence of Noah, you must also deny the existence of Shem.  Follow the logic and no Shem, no Abraham.  No Abraham and well, down the slope you go.

Noah did not exist.   That is a fact.  We DO have proof he didn't exist.
Everything in the story has been disproven.  

The story of Abraham supposedly took place in 2,000 BC.
The story wasn't written down until 1000 BC - 1400 BC.
That's a thousand  years of oral storytelling ... 
There is ZERO chance that the story of Abraham actually happened as the bible says.
People can't even keep an oral story straight for a day, let alone a thousand years.

Abraham might have existed.   His lineage doesn't have to be intact like the story 
for him to have existed.   But the story surrounding him .... zero proof it happened and
almost zero chance the story got it right if he did exist.

[andy06shake]

God CAN talk to people.
But in the case of Noah, He didn't.
There was no Noah.
The story of Moses and Exodus is full of holes.
Exodus, as the bible is written, can be disproven.
But we can't disprove Moses existed.
So in this case it's a maybe it did happen and maybe it didn't.

With an actual voice comprised of sound waves or in their head?  

Quite a bit that can't be proven or disproven unequivocally regarding both testaments of the Bible.

Then again, that's not how faith works, is it not?

After all, faith requires a leap, as opposed to a step of logic.

[chr0naut]

One holy book. So many different  versions, each with its champions.

Someone, somewhere must be having a hell of a laugh.

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXwgZL4zx9o]

How many Zoroastrian, Gnostic, Jain, Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist texts are there?

A proliferation of expressions, interpretations and translations just happens over time. Languages themselves change and evolve and new paradigms enter the cognosphere all the time.

[BeyondKnowledge]

I trust none of them to be the full truth. All are made by man and plagerozed from older works. Even back to oral traditions.

They do contain some good stories but cannot be used as an operation manual for life even though some try to do so. 

Alternately, God being everything in the universe, mans making of books on God may be considered as God's works but they were corrupted by time, translation and rewrites to the point to be just used to control other men. The books contain god now and not God.

[Creaky]

No.   The fact is that the flood and noahs ark didn't happen.
That's not opinion.  That's fact.  Proven by science and history and sociology.
Just like its not opinion when I say the earth revolves around the sun.
It's fact.

Think you are being a bit silly
care less what you think, about global floods or revolving earths, just a silly person ranting their beliefs as fact. 
Grow up, your opinion is irrelevant right or wrong 
Nothing worse than a religious fundamentalist forcing their truth on others, very Roman Catholic of you

Science said get your covid shots, off you go hurry up…