Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[AxisMundi]

All the great flood stories have the same source, brother...

Funny then how msot flood myths are far older than your bible.

The Biblical flood described in Genesis uses earthly and atmospheric sources of water - and, since humanity was localized, it was only necessary to flood the area in which humans lived...i.e. a local flood.

NO archeaological evidence of this either, and compeltely ignores the basic laws of hydrology as well.

The only time that the entire earth's surface was covered in water was in its early formation (as described in Genesis and Psalm 104). This is the same as science also tells us - yet another correct prediction the Holy Bible makes.

Water never again covered the entire earth's surface, brother.

You really need to start studying what you are attempting to argue...

Usually I put the clueless liek yourself on my ignore list, but you are just too funny to ignore.

1. As stated, there isn't enough water on, or in, the earth to compeltely inundate the earth. Never was, never will be.

2. No where does science state that the earth was compeltely covered in water at any time during the planet's history.

3. I suppose I should thank you for repeatedly giving examples of biblical apologetics, and the lengths to which said biblical apssages, and indeed reality itself, must be twisted to fit your apologetic views.

 

[Bowman]

Funny then how msot flood myths are far older than your bible.

Some are...some aren't.

What matters is which is most accurate.

NO archeaological evidence of this either, and compeltely ignores the basic laws of hydrology as well.

No laws are broken in a local flood.

1. As stated, there isn't enough water on, or in, the earth to compeltely inundate the earth. Never was, never will be.

There is for a local flood.

Time to change your viewpoint.

2. No where does science state that the earth was compeltely covered in water at any time during the planet's history.

Wrong.

But, then again, you still think that the Universe is oscillating in order to fit your incorrect theological world view.

3. I suppose I should thank you for repeatedly giving examples of biblical apologetics, and the lengths to which said biblical apssages, and indeed reality itself, must be twisted to fit your apologetic views.

Systematic exegesis works every time.

 

[painted wolf]

There are more cultures that don't have a "flood myth" than do. It's funny though, the cultures that do have flood myths tend to live near major waterways and places that experience flash flooding. Go figure.

wa:do

 

[Bowman]

There are more cultures that don't have a "flood myth" than do. It's funny though, the cultures that do have flood myths tend to live near major waterways and places that experience flash flooding. Go figure.

wa:do

Water is essential for life..thus, what culture would not be located near water?

 

[painted wolf]

Anasazi, Dobe, Dinka, Tureg... just to name a couple.

ps... this does nothing to address how many cultures do not have a global flood myth (or any flood myth at all).

wa:do

 

[Bowman]

Anasazi, Dobe, Dinka, Tureg... just to name a couple.

ps... this does nothing to address how many cultures do not have a global flood myth (or any flood myth at all).

wa:do

Many religions simply never recorded the event, and do not even have written scriptures.

What is your book of faith?

 

[painted wolf]

Many religions simply never recorded the event, and do not even have written scriptures.

How very convenient.... when you find a loosely flood related myth it counts, when you don't it doesn't count because you have a pre-determined excuse.

What is your book of faith?

Books decay and get filled with copy errors and political edits.

wa:do

 

[Bowman]

How very convenient.... when you find a loosely flood related myth it counts, when you don't it doesn't count because you have a pre-determined excuse.

Fact is, you can only examine the physical evidence of faiths which have actually recorded the event.

Since some 200 such stories have been recorded, then it is a simple matter of seeing which ones have the highest plausibility and point to the same event.

Books decay and get filled with copy errors and political edits.

Thus...I take it you have no book of faith.

Nothing recorded.

Nothing written down.

Nothing with which to test your origins.

Simply nothing.

 

[gnostic]

All the great flood stories have the same source, brother...

In the case of the Bible, like the Genesis, then yes, it came from an older source. The Genesis may have been composed around 1000 BCE, plus or minus a century or two.

The Babylonian story of Gilgamesh and the flood have been around since the beginning of the Old Babylonian period, and remained popular in the Middle East through the 2nd millennium BCE. So popular is the story of Gilgamesh that Middle Babylonian tablet fragments have been found as far as Egypt. There are fragments of Gilgamesh epic found also place like a Canaanite city of Megiddo. The Babylonian version of Noah was named Utnapishtim.

In Old Babylonian text of Atrahasis, we have the Flood story, written in the 17th century BCE, who built an ark to save his wife and few followers. This is Atrahasis is older Utnapishtim, and certainly older than Noah.

Even older than this Epic of Atrahasis is what historians called the Eridu Genesis, a Sumerian texts that has been badly damaged. The hero, here, in the Sumerian legend is called Ziusudra. References of Ziusudra and of the Flood can be found in 2 Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh - Gilgames and the Netherworld and the Death of Gilgames.

The Sumerian-Babylonian Flood story was quite well known in the 2nd millennium BCE, and clearly the ancient Hebrews have borrowed the myths from them. Well known enough that Hesiod had also adopted and adapted the myths of Atrahasis in his work - Works and Days. Instead of Enki-Ea saving Ziusudra-Atrahasis-Utnapishtim, we have Prometheus saving Deucalion.

Do you know why the story of Gilgamesh and the Flood were so popular?

Because apprentice scribes learning to write throughout the 2nd millennium and 1st millennium BCE (in scribe schools) had used these stories as exercises, to practice copying the texts down. Literally thousands of tablets have been found, and archaeologists are still trying to decipher and translate these tablets.

The Genesis is perhaps best known and best source about the Flood, and certainly better written, but the truth of the matter is that the Genesis is not the oldest source.

 

[AxisMundi]

Some are...some aren't.

What matters is which is most accurate.

No laws are broken in a local flood.

There is for a local flood.

Time to change your viewpoint.

Wrong.

But, then again, you still think that the Universe is oscillating in order to fit your incorrect theological world view.

Systematic exegesis works every time.

Not that I expect anything, but go ahead and prove your statements.

You cans tart with there being enough water on the planet and science "agreeing" with that biblical concept.

 

[Bowman]

In the case of the Bible, like the Genesis, then yes, it came from an older source. The Genesis may have been composed around 1000 BCE, plus or minus a century or two.

The Babylonian story of Gilgamesh and the flood have been around since the beginning of the Old Babylonian period, and remained popular in the Middle East through the 2nd millennium BCE. So popular is the story of Gilgamesh that Middle Babylonian tablet fragments have been found as far as Egypt. There are fragments of Gilgamesh epic found also place like a Canaanite city of Megiddo. The Babylonian version of Noah was named Utnapishtim.

In Old Babylonian text of Atrahasis, we have the Flood story, written in the 17th century BCE, who built an ark to save his wife and few followers. This is Atrahasis is older Utnapishtim, and certainly older than Noah.

Even older than this Epic of Atrahasis is what historians called the Eridu Genesis, a Sumerian texts that has been badly damaged. The hero, here, in the Sumerian legend is called Ziusudra. References of Ziusudra and of the Flood can be found in 2 Sumerian poems about Gilgamesh - Gilgames and the Netherworld and the Death of Gilgames.

The Sumerian-Babylonian Flood story was quite well known in the 2nd millennium BCE, and clearly the ancient Hebrews have borrowed the myths from them. Well known enough that Hesiod had also adopted and adapted the myths of Atrahasis in his work - Works and Days. Instead of Enki-Ea saving Ziusudra-Atrahasis-Utnapishtim, we have Prometheus saving Deucalion.

Do you know why the story of Gilgamesh and the Flood were so popular?

Because apprentice scribes learning to write throughout the 2nd millennium and 1st millennium BCE (in scribe schools) had used these stories as exercises, to practice copying the texts down. Literally thousands of tablets have been found, and archaeologists are still trying to decipher and translate these tablets.

The Genesis is perhaps best known and best source about the Flood, and certainly better written, but the truth of the matter is that the Genesis is not the oldest source.

You seem to be confusing 'oldest' with original.

Its clear that the original is the Biblical account.

 

[Bowman]

Not that I expect anything, but go ahead and prove your statements.

You cans tart with there being enough water on the planet and science "agreeing" with that biblical concept.

You need to first get over your mind-set that the flood was global.

It was not global.

It was local.

 

[Meow Mix]

You need to first get over your mind-set that the flood was global.

It was not global.

It was local.

Genesis 7:19 (KJV): "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." (Emphasis added)

So... the flood was "local" but it flooded everything under the "whole heaven?" I guess heaven is only over the Middle East...?

Genesis 7:21 (KJV): "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" (Emphasis added)

I guess every man only existed in the Middle East, and not, say, across the whole globe?

Genesis 6:17 (KJV): "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." (Emphasis added)

So... every thing that is in the earth was only killed in a "local" flood?

Genesis 9:10 (KJV): "And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth." (Emphasis added)

How could Noah have "every beast" if the flood was local?

Genesis 9:15 (KJV): "And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." (Emphasis added)

Why would God make a promise with a rainbow not to cause any more local floods, considering there have been countless local floods that killed people since? Are you saying God is a liar and breaks promises? Also notice that God says the flood He was talking about destroyed "all" flesh, not just "some flesh in a local region."

Genesis 9:19 (KJV): "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread." (Emphasis added)

So... why, if it was a local flood, did the sons of Noah overcome the entire Earth? Were they all Chuck Norris and just smashed down everyone else?

Genesis 6:13 (KJV): "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth" (Emphasis added)

So... God just means "part" of the earth here? How does God cause the end of ALL flesh by flooding "part" of the earth, when God says He will destroy them with "the earth" (NOT "part of the earth")?

2 Peter 3:6 (KJV): "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (Emphasis added)

So... why isn't it being said "part of the world overflowed with water and perished?"




Look, I don't believe the Bible obviously. But you have some explaining to do if you claim you do believe this nonsense happened in the first place if it's global, and why you disregard your "holy" source if you contend that it was only local. Seems like a conundrum to me.

 

[gnostic]

You seem to be confusing 'oldest' with original.

Its clear that the original is the Biblical account.

No, I'm not confused. The original creation/flood myth came from the Sumerian texts; it is also the oldest.

As I said before, the Genesis was just a borrowing of the Babylonian texts, and changed the story to suit the Hebrew audience. Instead of having one god (Enlil) destroying mankind and another god (Enki/Ea) saving the Flood hero, the Genesis had Hebrew god doing both, which is rather confusing. Why would a god save anyone when he meant to destroy mankind? Which is why the biblical version doesn't make sense.

The same reason why the creation story in Genesis 1 is confusing. God speak of "us" and "our" when he was creating the first man and woman in our "image" and "likeness". The original story must have been written with a number of gods instead of just the one.

The order of creation in Genesis bear striking similarity to that of Old Babylonian Enuma Elish ("Epic of the Creation), written around 16th century BCE. Marduk, the new king of the gods, ordered Ea (Sumerian Enki) to create the world, first bringing "light", before firmament and land, then luminaries (sun, moon, stars), and lastly primitive men. The story in Enuma Elish is also centuries older than the Genesis.

It showed that the Genesis was following similar line of older Bronze Age myth, which the Israelites had adopted and changed to suit the monotheistic religion, except it didn't completely get rid of its polytheistic origin of the story.

It is just like early Christians had changed the Germanic Yule, a pagan Winter's Solstice festival, and turned into Christ's mass (Christmas). The giving out gifts to children, putting sweets in socks and putting decorations around the house and on the tree didn't come from the gospels, but from pagan tradition. When was the tree ever a Christian symbol? The tree was meant to represent Yggdrasil - the World Tree. The tree symbolize renewal of light and warmer season (hence Yule had fertility nature, like so common in many other cultures, where seasonal feasts were celebrated on specific time of the years), because the day begin to length at this solstice and the night grow shorter. The socks were originally filled with hay for Odin's horse. Food and drink were left for the 3 gods - Odin, Loki and Hoenir.

And because of silly Christians tends to forget that the scripture were written by Jews, and interpret wrongly in a number of areas, like the wrongful translation of the Morning Star to Lucifer in Isaiah. The prophecy, which is not a prophecy at all, speak of the Morning Star, as a metaphor for the King of Babylon, not the Christian Satan/Devil/Lucifer. The reason why the Morning Star symbolize Babylon and its king, is because before Marduk became prominent god in Babylon, Babylon was a cult centre of the goddess Ishtar (Sumerian Inana). Her symbol was the morning star. In many depictions of Ishtar (statues, bas-relief, seals, etc), she worn the star-shape on top of her head. It had nothing to do with Satan/Lucifer. It was Jerome who translated the Morning Star or Son of Morning to Lucifer, a Latin name for the planet Venus.

 

[David M]

Look, I don't believe the Bible obviously. But you have some explaining to do if you claim you do believe this nonsense happened in the first place if it's global, and why you disregard your "holy" source if you contend that it was only local. Seems like a conundrum to me.

Not so much. The term eretz is used elsewhere in the bible to mean land/earth as being a region rather than a whole planet.

Global Flood proponents argue that the references genesis must translate eretz to mean the whole planet, but a translation that makes it refer to the region is equally valid.

 

[Looncall]

Not so much. The term eretz is used elsewhere in the bible to mean land/earth as being a region rather than a whole planet.

Global Flood proponents argue that the references genesis must translate eretz to mean the whole planet, but a translation that makes it refer to the region is equally valid.

If the text is so vague on such an important point, what use is it at all? Isn't it rather silly to use it as an account of historical events?

 

[AxisMundi]

Not so much. The term eretz is used elsewhere in the bible to mean land/earth as being a region rather than a whole planet.

Global Flood proponents argue that the references genesis must translate eretz to mean the whole planet, but a translation that makes it refer to the region is equally valid.

The highest point in the Middle East is in Iran, Mt Damavand, which stands at 18,406 ft. In contrast, Mt. Everest is 29,029 ft high.

No local flood is going to cover such a high range, and not be of a global nature.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Not so much. The term eretz is used elsewhere in the bible to mean land/earth as being a region rather than a whole planet.

Global Flood proponents argue that the references genesis must translate eretz to mean the whole planet, but a translation that makes it refer to the region is equally valid.

If the Flood were not planet-wide, this would remove the need for Noah to:

a) Build an Ark
b) Collect up the animals

Both could have been easily solved by just moving beyond the watershed of the soon-to-be-flooded area.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not so much. The term eretz is used elsewhere in the bible to mean land/earth as being a region rather than a whole planet.

Global Flood proponents argue that the references genesis must translate eretz to mean the whole planet, but a translation that makes it refer to the region is equally valid.

Why would God promise with a rainbow not to flood locally anymore -- an event that happens every few years?

Am I misunderstanidng what the promise of the bow is supposed to be?

Why would Noah not find land in 40 days/nights? Was he just a terrible navigator and was just going in circles?

I think it's really a stretch of the imagination to try to make the flood local honestly. I don't disagree that the myth and others like it likely arose from a local flood, but I think the story itself is pretty clear about the scope of the flood it's describing.

 

[painted wolf]

Thus...I take it you have no book of faith.

Nothing recorded.

Nothing written down.

Nothing with which to test your origins.

Simply nothing.

Actually, my faith has living repositories of knowledge who dedicate their lives to memorization and study.
I'm sure my faith as no more typo's than yours. Your oldest records are not exactly that old btw, certainly not the oldest writing.

It's convenient that you claim your bible is older... even though there is no evidence to support it. Other than a few translations that say so. (and don't agree with other translations or original language versions in many places)

wa:do