Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[FlyersFan]

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

  What is silly is you are melting down because someone stated a proven fact that you don't like.  FACT .. Noahs Flood/Noahs Ark didn't happen.  PROVEN not to have happened.  That statement isn't a 'rant' ... it's a statement of fact.  

How about YOU grow up ... it's not my opinion ... it's fact.  And if you don't care, then why are you bothering to respond?   You most certainly do care otherwise you wouldn't bother.  

I'm not a religious fundamentalist.  If I were, I'd be pushing Noahs Ark as a fact.   And it's not 'my truth' that Noahs Ark didn't happen ... it's simply THE truth.

You are easy.  

[3rdrockfrmsun]

  What is silly is you are melting down because someone stated a proven fact that you don't like.  FACT .. Noahs Flood/Noahs Ark didn't happen.  PROVEN not to have happened.  That statement isn't a 'rant' ... it's a statement of fact.  

How about YOU grow up ... it's not my opinion ... it's fact.  And if you don't care, then why are you bothering to respond?   You most certainly do care otherwise you wouldn't bother.  

I'm not a religious fundamentalist.  If I were, I'd be pushing Noahs Ark as a fact.   And it's not 'my truth' that Noahs Ark didn't happen ... it's simply THE truth.

You are easy.  

What is wild, however, is that I showed you verifiable instances in history where flooding in the region can be proven, yet you have not shown any proof that the flood has been debunked.

[FlyersFan]

What is wild, however, is that I showed you verifiable instances in history where flooding in the region can be proven, yet you have not show any proof that the flood has been debunked.

What is wild is that you think a few regional floods proves the absolutely impossible Noahs Ark story.   They don't.

The evidence is all around you that Noahs Ark didn't happen.  Open your eyes.   THINK.

If Noahs Ark happened, then everyone on the planet would share the same DNA, the same language, the same culture, and the same God.   They don't.   If Noahs Ark happened, then Egypts civilization would not have continued on unbroken and growing.   We have evidence that it did ... unbroken all through the pharaohs and kingdoms.   If Noahs Ark happened, then the Australian aborigines wouldn't exist and still have a proven unbroken civilization and culture going back 65,000 years.   

The fact that Kangaroos exist in Australia prove that Noahs Ark didn't happen.  They have no way of getting from Australia to the Middle East and back.   Same with armadillos in the desert southwest of the USA.  No way of getting from there to the middle east and back.   Same with the sloths of south America.   Same with the polar bears.   Same with the penguins.   etc etc.

Thousands of species require ants in their diets.  The ark couldn't hold all the ants that it would need to in order to feed those thousands of ant eating species for the one year journey, and it couldn't hold all the food required to feed those ants too.   Same with the insect eating species.   90% of birds require insects to eat.   The ark couldn't carry all the species of birds let alone all the insects and the food for the insects to keep the birds feed.

There are 400,000 known species of beetles in the world.  The ark couldn't hold all those species let alone their food as well.  And there is no way for them all to leave their habitats, travel to the middle east, find suitable food along the way, and travel back and find suitable food along the way back.

And no .. the 'kinds of animals' argument doesn't work.   Species doesn't work that way.   A single pair of beetles doesn't suddenly become 400,000 species of beetles upon exiting the ark.   Evolution doesn't work like that and certainly not in just 4,000 years.   EVERY species would have to be represented on the ark.   The ark simply couldn't hold them all, and all their food as well, and all the fresh water that would be required.

The people of that time period, 4,000 years ago, didn't have the ship building skills to be able to make an ark that big.  4 men working on an ark that size couldn't do it even if they knew how.  The ark would rot before they could finish.  And no, they wouldn't have hired people.   The people didn't have the skills and they didn't have the money to do it.  

And 8 humans couldn't have kept the ark sanitary with all the poop and pee going on.   There was a very long thread about this at ATS.   They would have had to work 20 hours a day removing all the animal waste.

The Impossible Voyage of Noahs Ark
MANY such science sites just like this.   Educate yourself.

There are a few nuggets for you to chew on.   Use your head.   Science and history and sociology prove it didn't happen.

[Creaky]

  What is silly is you are melting down because someone stated a proven fact that you don't like.  FACT .. Noahs Flood/Noahs Ark didn't happen.  PROVEN not to have happened.  That statement isn't a 'rant' ... it's a statement of fact.  

How about YOU grow up ... it's not my opinion ... it's fact.  And if you don't care, then why are you bothering to respond?   You most certainly do care otherwise you wouldn't bother.  

I'm not a religious fundamentalist.  If I were, I'd be pushing Noahs Ark as a fact.   And it's not 'my truth' that Noahs Ark didn't happen ... it's simply THE truth.

You are easy.  

Take this on or not FF
You are coming across as a crazy extremist, you are demanding your beliefs on others, you are thinking yourself way more important than you are 
Your opinion is nothing to me and has lost all value now
You are like the government demanding Covid vaccine, “I am right and you do as I tell you”, despotic. 

re read your replies and think,
is this how normal balanced people act
do I want to be this person

melting down at your opinion, Noah’s ark, flat earth, I don’t care, believe as you want, your opinion is irrelevant and dismissed 
Just listen to yourself and the way you act here

[3rdrockfrmsun]

The evidence is all around you that Noahs Ark didn't happen.  Open your eyes.   THINK.

​​​​​​

You’re right about one thing: a literal, worldwide flood that wiped out every ecosystem and left only eight humans and pairs of every species aboard one wooden barge is practically impossible by our modern understanding of geology, biogeography, and ecology. The logistical problems you listed — kangaroos, armadillos, penguins, insect diets, fresh water, waste, shipbuilding skill, and the sheer number of species — are real and hard to reconcile with a literal, global ark story. Point taken.
But two important clarifications:

1. Nobody with half a brain insists the whole planet had to be covered for the story to be “true.” Many historians and scientists who take the Bible seriously read the flood as a massive regional catastrophe in the ancient Near East. For people who lived along a few river valleys, a flood that wiped out their entire world would have felt like the entire planet went under. That explains why multiple cultures in the same region remember a huge deluge.
   
2. “Species” ≠ biblical “kinds,” and stories evolve. Ancient writers used broad categories, symbolic numbers, and archetypes — not modern biological taxonomy. The flood tale in Mesopotamia (Ziusudra/Utnapishtim/Atrahasis) predates Genesis, which strongly suggests the Hebrews were inheriting and reworking a shared regional memory — turning it into a moral/theological tale about judgment and covenant. Cultural continuity, not wholesale copying, is the better description.
   

So: your practical objections are excellent ammunition against a wooden-ark-every-species literalism. But dismissing the entire story as meaningless ignores why so many nearby cultures preserved the same memory. The smarter position is to recognize that a huge, terrifying flood event probably happened in that part of the world, and that ancient peoples encoded that trauma as myth, allegory, and theology — which is exactly what myths do: preserve truth in the only language they had.
If your point is “the literal, global ark is impossible” — I’ll agree and applaud your common sense. If your point is “therefore no historical flood-memory and no deeper meaning” — then you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
And one last thing: yelling “USE YOUR HEAD!” doesn’t make your argument better. Facts and nuance do.

Are you a Christian, ye of little faith?

[FlyersFan]

You are coming across as a crazy extremist, you are demanding your beliefs on others, 

   You whine a lot.   It's not a good look for you.   I'm having a rational discussion ... and they aren't my 'beliefs', they are scientific and historical fact.

The extremists are those who insist that Noahs Ark actually happened, when all evidence proves it did not.

I don't give a rats backend what you think of me.   Your opinion is irrelevant.  

You are so easy.  

[FlyersFan]

Are you a Christian, ye of little faith?

Yep, and I'm stating the fact that Noahs Ark is an allegory and did not literally happen.
The larger part of Christianity recognizes this fact.
And recognizing that fact says NOTHING about the state of a persons faith in God.
It's just stating the proven fact and what the majority of Christianity believe .... it's ALLEGORY and not literal history.

[SoTaxMe]

Personally, I think the "Noah's Ark" religious theory may have some questionable possible reasoning.  It may be possible that this theory of all species were saved of two of each species could have been saved.  But that would only be possible if all species on the planet were saved as each species DNA.  Which could only have been supported by alien foresight.  Extreme theory? . Certainly.  But there was a high flood level in much of past documentation in many religious writings that raised the water level beyond our current comprehension.  We have a ranch here in Texas covered in sea fossils, and we are at least 2500 ft above current sea levels.  Who knows how much higher those floods may be found.  But our ranch was certainly at a much higher sea level at one point in history.  So my point is that we did certainly experience a high sea level at one point in history.  And my question to all...is it possible that alien influence may have forseen what was about to happen, and came in to save all our species? 
Crazy theory, but...Hmm

73"s to All

[Bootless]

Thousands of species require ants in their diets. 

So to sum it up,
The story of Noah's Ark is full of termites.

[chr0naut]

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.

I wouldn't be too hasty to disregard these accounts.

There are flood myths where a hero survives in a boat of some sort, in nearly every human culture and we have worldwide geolophysical evidences of significant 'geologically' recent inundations.

And theophany is a thing, even in the New Testament.

But I do think we are interpreting the accounts incorrectly. In Genesis, the early narratives are broken up into sections with what are assumed to be genealogical markers. The Hebrew word 'toledot' is translated as 'generations of' (and, indeed historically, traditional Hebrew tribalism has made it a big thing to have a strong genealogical pedigree).

I would posit that the 'toledot' actually is an identifier of who was the original author and witness to the events. There is no 'toledot' for Abraham in Genesis. It makes no sense to have a genealogy and leave out one of the most important people/generations?

Prior to parchment, papyrus and vellum, writings were either engraved into stones or impressed into clay. Portable examples of these didn't hold much text, and so narratives had to have a way of spanning several stones/tablets. The Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian peoples did this by taking the last bit of text, then putting an attribution on the tablet (sometimes on the back, but not always) and then starting the next tablet with a repeat of the last bit of text from the previous account. In this way, by using the attribution and textual repetition, one could reassemble the whole narrative on several tablets in order.

The structure of Genesis around the 'toledot' attribution seems to reflect this structure of the last idea, then the toledot, then a repetition of the previous idea, then to narrative continues...

Moses was a prince of Egypt and would have been familiar with reading Egyptian documents. But he needed to make records while in transit, and so started to transcribe the bulky and awkward ancient documents onto animal skins with gall ink (or maybe someone, or he, had already done so before they even left Egypt). It also stands that he would use familiar writing conventions even on the 'new' media.