Answering Questions

[Hockeycowboy]

But again, the Israelites had extensive ship trade with other cultures. Asking a boat builder for some reasonable dimensions would not be difficult.

Genesis was written around 1513 BCE. Most of “Modern academia” doesn’t recognize many facts; they’re wedded to naturalism, ignoring all evidence of supernatural events….therefore, of necessity they have to ascribe the writing of Genesis to a later date, and many believe it…. But not everyone.

Only with denial can one ignore the obvious literary parallels between the Gilamesh flood story. It's accepted in academia that the story is a re-write, as are the creation narratives.

I’m not denying anything… they are simply accounts from different perspectives, but both describe the same event. As with most all the Flood legends, 250+

Now you are actually lying. What was said was it would probably float. It didn't say "ideal"? You made that up.

“Probably” float? Nope…

They are ideal, because those ratios are similar to what modern shipbuilders of non-powered barges utilize!

 

[Sheldon]

“Probably” float? Nope…

They are ideal, because those ratios are similar to what modern shipbuilders of non-powered barges utilize!

All you have is a paper exercise by students involving a subjective assessment of the weight of animals involved, and a calculation of the displacement of a vessel of that size, and that it might have floated. No matter how many times you dishonestly misrepresent this, it is not evidence for any flood, global or otherwise, it is not evidence for the Noah myth at all, and it does not present objective evidence that the Ark described in the bible would work or was seaworthy.

 

[joelr]

Genesis was written around 1513 BCE. Most of “Modern academia” doesn’t recognize many facts; they’re wedded to naturalism, ignoring all evidence of supernatural events….therefore, of necessity they have to ascribe the writing of Genesis to a later date, and many believe it…. But not everyone.

Whenever someone has to say "most of modern academia" they are invoking a conspiracy theory. Unless you had massive evidence against some academic conspiracy (you don't) then you are just a flat Earther or 9/11 inside job conspiriter.
Having to go to that length to make your beliefs true means you don't care about what is actually true. You want to live in a fantasy world.
What is known by rational people,
The Genesis creation narrative,was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source) and was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today.[3] The two sources can be identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic.[4] The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation:

Of course if academia confirmed you position you would be jumping up and down and asking other for "only scholarship" when debating. All this does is confirm your beliefs are definitely false.

ignoring all evidence of supernatural events…

There is no evidence. Just stories. Now if scholarship changed their theories on Hinduism and Islam based on all the miracles and supernatural things said in the scripture you would probably have a fit. But for your myths it's ok, because you believe in them? Unbelievable?

I’m not denying anything… they are simply accounts from different perspectives, but both describe the same event. As with most all the Flood legends, 250+

Although the stories are clearly copied they are not tales of the same event. First Genesis was written in 6B.C. during the Babylonian exile. This is how the Hebrew writers gained access to the Mesopotamian myths. But they are clearly not the same event. The names of characters are different, the Gods are different, the Gods motivation is different. Both cultures are writing fiction but using their theology.
Mesopotamia has multiple Gods and in 6B.C. Israel had one. So they modified the story. But both times there was a sacrifice the deity smelled a "sweet savior". Gilamesh was copied from an older version and Noah was copied from Gilamesh and the only difference is the names and theology.

“Probably” float? Nope…

They are ideal, because those ratios are similar to what modern shipbuilders of non-powered barges utilize!

You posted the link to the paper. That paper was YOUR BIG EVIDENCE??
I found the paper and posted the results. They had NO IDEA if it would work. They said it would "probably float" in saline. How can you say "nope" to YOUR BIG SOURCE???????????????????

These rations are NOT similar to anything that floats?

Barges, boats, whatever, have a top deck length, a bottom length (it's different, the base is smaller), a front height and a rear height, (again different the front is angled) and is WAY more complicated than 3 ratios.

The paper was a bunch of apologist kids who would be butthurt if the ark measurements couldn't be made into something that would at least float on saline. It might float on slaine is their conclusion.

Look up plans for building a real wooden boat.

 

[nPeace]

Me too.

Well, then I think you don't understand what science is; you're describing the opposite of science.
Natural science - Wikipedia

Where did I say I have a problem with you believing what you do? You opened this thread called "Answering Questions". I'm asking questions and you are answering them. And if you have questions for me I'm happy to answer them too.

Ok, let's talk abou science again.
1. Do you hold the believe that science is only valuable or reasonable to accept when there is "no doubt" and 100% certainty?
2. Is "no doubt" and 100% certainty the same as "absolute certainty" to you?
3. If not, can you explain what the difference is?
4. If so, why do you hold a different standard to science than you hold to you personal believe in a god?

I have already answered your question.

Number 2 is a bit confusing, give me a few hours to put it in a form I might be able to understand. Or, you can tell me what absolute certainly is to you, and how it differs from 100% certainty. I don't know how you guys are thinking, so that's important to get clear first.

Numbers 3, and 4, are only imagined, based on if you still don't understand the answer I gave about twice already.

 

[nPeace]

You just did. It’s not about “a bigger boat.” It’s not surprising that you wouldn’t admit it.



This is mostly what I have referred to. Are they lying?:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

This is an excerpt:
“The full paper, The animals float two by two, hurrah!, was published in a peer-reviewed student journal.”

I can’t seem to access it. (Don’t know why for sure, but I have my suspicions )
Can you get it?

I can access the first link, but not the second. Is the information different?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I can access the first link, but not the second. Is the information different?

I know, ain’t that a crock?! I guess access is denied?
They don’t want their study based on science, to be used to support the Bible’s veracity.

Everywhere in this world, we see evidence of the Wicked One’s control, just as the Bible states @ 1 John5 19:

“1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one. “

Take care, my brother.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Further experimentation could offer better insight on these topics.

Can Noah’s Ark Float? - Future Science Leaders

interesting link. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Sheldon]

They don’t want their study based on science, to be used to support the Bible’s veracity.

They? You do understand that whilst that level of paranoia is hilarious, it doesn't lend credence to your position, quite the reverse. Science is a tool box, methods for examining the natural physical world and universe and understanding how and why it works and appears as it does. They would not care whether what they understand vaguely matches any claims in archaic superstitions, and theistic scientists would be literally ecstatic if it ever happens.

 

[KWED]

Genesis was written around 1513 BCE.

All the evidence suggests a date around 5th-6th C BC. The only people who claim it was 1500BC are people with a vested interest in it being that date. It is essentially question begging. If Moses was a real person, and if he wrote Genesis, and if he lived around 1500BC, then the date Moses wrote Genesis must have been around 1500BC. I obviously don't need to point out the fatal flaws in the reasoning employed there.

Most of “Modern academia” doesn’t recognize many facts;

This is supposed to be satire, yes?

ignoring all evidence of supernatural events

there is no evidence of supernatural events, only claims and assertions.

….therefore, of necessity they have to ascribe the writing of Genesis to a later date

Why?

 

[nPeace]

All the evidence suggests a date around 5th-6th C BC. The only people who claim it was 1500BC are people with a vested interest in it being that date. It is essentially question begging. If Moses was a real person, and if he wrote Genesis, and if he lived around 1500BC, then the date Moses wrote Genesis must have been around 1500BC. I obviously don't need to point out the fatal flaws in the reasoning employed there.


This is supposed to be satire, yes?

there is no evidence of supernatural events, only claims and assertions.

Why?

I remember with pleasure, the many characters that were "question based", until archaeologists dug them up, and the evidence was repugnant to those people so many put their faith in, as though somehow these "experts" know everything under the sun... like they are gods or something.
I'm still laughing.

In fact, to this day, people are still laughing at those who had to get over the fact that their ever-existing universe was debunked by the Big Bang.

No, There is evidence of supernatural events.
As it has been demonstrated time and time again, the only ones making the claims and assertions, are the deniers, that continue to get slapped in the face, every time the evidence turns up.

I really would like to have been standing in front of them each time the evidence was confirmed.

 

[KWED]

I remember with pleasure, the many characters that were "question based", until archaeologists dug them up, and the evidence was repugnant to those people so many put their faith in, as though somehow these "experts" know everything under the sun... like they are gods or something.
I'm still laughing.
In fact, to this day, people are still laughing at those who had to get over the fact that their ever-existing universe was debunked by the Big Bang.

I have literally no idea what you are on about.

No, There is evidence of supernatural events.

And yet, no one has bothered to produce it. Strange, don't you think?

As it has been demonstrated time and time again, the only ones making the claims and assertions, are the deniers, that continue to get slapped in the face, every time the evidence turns up.

I guess you are just another of those who claims there is evidence but fails to produce it then?

 

[nPeace]

I have literally no idea what you are on about.

And yet, no one has bothered to produce it. Strange, don't you think?

I guess you are just another of those who claims there is evidence but fails to produce it then?

I think those who claim that no one has produces any evidence for a divine creator, is just

 

[KWED]

I think those who claim that no one has produces any evidence for a divine creator, is just

Somewhat ironic, considering you still haven't produced any evidence for a divine creator.
Are you going to do so at some point, or are you going to just keep claiming you have it, as if that is enough "evidence" in itself?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, you asked me a question but I didn’t answer:

I can access the first link, but not the second. Is the information different?

I don’t know. When I first found the site (about 2 years ago), I was able to. I don’t remember it being much different, just more technical if I recall correctly.

All I can get now, is the address to show up, “physics.le.ac.uk”, but the page doesn’t load.

It doesn’t surprise me….but it saddens me. Too much information is being suppressed.

 

[nPeace]

Somewhat ironic, considering you still haven't produced any evidence for a divine creator.

Why do you keep parroting yourselves, as though you are trying really hard to convince yourselves?

Are you going to do so at some point, or are you going to just keep claiming you have it, as if that is enough "evidence" in itself?

Yes. I am actually. I am doing so... again, for the benefit of those who keep

...and repeatedly parroting themselves... "I haven't seen any evidence. You haven't given any evidence."

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, you asked me a question but I didn’t answer:


I don’t know. When I first found the site (about 2 years ago), I was able to. I don’t remember it being much different, just more technical if I recall correctly.

All I can get now, is the address to show up, “physics.le.ac.uk”, but the page doesn’t load.

It doesn’t surprise me….but it saddens me. Too much information is being suppressed.

Don't concern yourself. It makes no difference... not even a little bit.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

All the evidence suggests a date around 5th-6th C BC.

“All the evidence “?
No, that’s completely wrong ….the silver scrolls, a copy of what is called the priestly blessing at Numbers 6:24-26, is dated to 600 BCE which debunks that claim.

So the original writings, of necessity, have to be older.

The only people who claim it was 1500BC are people with a vested interest in it being that date. It is essentially question begging. If Moses was a real person, and if he wrote Genesis, and if he lived around 1500BC, then the date Moses wrote Genesis must have been around 1500BC. I obviously don't need to point out the fatal flaws in the reasoning employed there.

The historical events surrounding the Exodus, both prior to and following, according to the Ipuwer document, Manetho’s account, the Pharaoh Merenptah stele, and other evidences RE: the origin of proto-Sinaitic script (all taken together), support the Bible’s description and timeline as occurring during the history of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, around 1500 BCE to 1450 BCE.

there is no evidence of supernatural events, only claims and assertions.

And yet, no one has bothered to produce it. Strange, don't you think?

There are all kinds of accounts, from here on these forums, to Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia, witnessed by those who are/were considered by many as very rational people. And thousands of other documented experiences.
Only those with an agenda would overlook such evidence.

 

[nPeace]

“All the evidence “?
No, that’s completely wrong ….the silver scrolls, a copy of what is called the priestly blessing at Numbers 6:24-26, is dated to 600 BCE which debunks that claim.

So the original writings, of necessity, have to be older.


The historical events surrounding the Exodus, both prior to and following, according to the Ipuwer document, Manetho’s account, the Pharaoh Merenptah stele, and other evidences RE: the origin of proto-Sinaitic script (all taken together), support the Bible’s description and timeline as occurring during the history of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, around 1500 BCE to 1450 BCE.




There are all kinds of accounts, from here on these forums, to Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia, witnessed by those who are/were considered by many as very rational people. And thousands of other documented experiences.
Only those with an agenda would overlook such evidence.

Doing research on this... the silver scrolls is accepted as being older than 600 BC.

*** w06 1/15 p. 32 “The Earliest Known Citations of Biblical Texts” ***
scholars emphasize that the archaeological data support a date before the Babylonian exile. The paleographic observations—the dating of scripts from the shape, form, stance, stroke order, and direction—point to the same time period, that is, to the end of the seventh century B.C.E. And finally, when considering the orthography, the science of spelling, this team concludes: “The orthographic data in the plaques [scrolls] is consistent with the archaeological and palaeographical evidence in terms of the dating of the inscriptions.”
The journal Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research sums up the study of the silver scrolls, also known as the Ketef Hinnom inscriptions, as follows: “We can thus reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of biblical texts.”

The silver scrolls date back to the 7th century B.C. That is during the First Temple time period, around the time that Jeremiah the prophet lived and King Josiah reigned in Jerusalem. This was a time period when some skeptics previously doubted that the book of Numbers had even been written yet, but this find indicates that it had.

 

[KWED]

“All the evidence “?
No, that’s completely wrong ….the silver scrolls, a copy of what is called the priestly blessing at Numbers 6:24-26, is dated to 600 BCE which debunks that claim.

Hmm. You do realise that 600BC is in the 6th century BC? So you are basically admitting that the oldest extant text that bears similarity to the OT is from the 6th century BC. Which is what I said.

Remember that you are claiming it is 1000 years older than that.

So the original writings, of necessity, have to be older.

What "original writings"? Why do you claim the scrolls must be a copy of much earlier texts? How do you know they are not the first attempt at recording the ideas they contain? Sounds a lot like more question begging to me.

The historical events surrounding the Exodus, both prior to and following, according to the Ipuwer document, Manetho’s account, the Pharaoh Merenptah stele, and other evidences RE: the origin of proto-Sinaitic script (all taken together), support the Bible’s description and timeline as occurring during the history of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, around 1500 BCE to 1450 BCE.

None of your claimed "evidence" describes the Biblical exodus narrative or the Moses character, but even if it did, that wouldn't be evidence for the OT being written at that time.

There are all kinds of accounts, from here on these forums, to Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia, witnessed by those who are/were considered by many as very rational people. And thousands of other documented experiences.
Only those with an agenda would overlook such evidence.

Important point to bear in mind here. Anecdotal tales are not regarded as "evidence" by rational people, especially if they are making extraordinary claims.

 

[AppieB]

I have already answered your question.
Number 2 is a bit confusing, give me a few hours to put it in a form I might be able to understand. Or, you can tell me what absolute certainly is to you, and how it differs from 100% certainty. I don't know how you guys are thinking, so that's important to get clear first.

Ok, sorry for the repeating questions (I don't want to make wrong assumptions), but you answer for question 1 is definitely yes.
And I assume your answer for question 2 is also yes since you don't see a real distincition between the two.

Well, since science can never be absolute certain of anything, this means science for you is not valuable as a method for (reliable) knowledge. In other words: according to you it is not reasonable to accept scientific knowledge/facts/theories.
Therefore it can not be used to justify or verify claims in the Bible.

Next question is: how do you confirm anything with absolute certainty?

Numbers 3, and 4, are only imagined, based on if you still don't understand the answer I gave about twice already.

You earlier stated the following: "No. I accept the knowledge that there is a creator, even though I do not have absolute proof of that knowledge."
It seems that you are not absolute certain (there is no absolute proof), so why are you accepting this 'knowledge'?
Wouldn't it be consistent to not believe in a creator?
This is what I meant with a different standard. You want absolute certainty when it comes to science, but when it comes to a believe in a creator you don't require the same standard.
I'm curious why that is.