Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[David M]

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?

It would not be vague to the people who first retold the stories, of course no one speaks that language any more because even Hebrew has evolved over the centuries.

 

[David M]

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.

So you can reliably place the location of the source of the flood story at Mt Damavand then?

 

[Bowman]

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.

Look to the Hebrew for your answers, sister.

The Hebrew words translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (all) and erets (earth, land, country, or ground).

We don't need to look very far in Genesis before we find the Hebrew words kol erets...

• The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole kol land erets of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2.11)
• And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole kol land erets of Cush. (Genesis 2.13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context.

In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the OT to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.

 

[Bowman]

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.

Again...which is original, brother?

Stop googling long enough to actually study the languages...

 

[Bowman]

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.

And we all know how well preserved the memory is with peyote.

Your oldest records are not exactly that old btw, certainly not the oldest writing.

But the original.

It's convenient that you claim your bible is older... even though there is no evidence to support it.

Where was this ever mentioned?

Other than a few translations that say so. (and don't agree with other translations or original language versions in many places)

What would you know about original languages...?

 

[Meow Mix]

Look to the Hebrew for your answers, sister.

The Hebrew words translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (all) and erets (earth, land, country, or ground).

We don't need to look very far in Genesis before we find the Hebrew words kol erets...

• The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole kol land erets of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2.11)
• And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole kol land erets of Cush. (Genesis 2.13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context.

In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the OT to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet.

I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't explain why:

1) An ark was necessary whatsoever, or putting animals into it, if the flood was local

2) Why Noah wasn't able to find land in 40 nights (with respect, is he an idiot... or just that bad of a navigator?)

3) What did God's promise of the rainbow mean, then -- that He wouldn't flood local areas anymore? If so, how do we explain all the local floods since then -- blame it on the Devil?

 

[Bowman]

I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't explain why:

1) An ark was necessary whatsoever, or putting animals into it, if the flood was local

2) Why Noah wasn't able to find land in 40 nights (with respect, is he an idiot... or just that bad of a navigator?)

3) What did God's promise of the rainbow mean, then -- that He wouldn't flood local areas anymore? If so, how do we explain all the local floods since then -- blame it on the Devil?

Read the story.

Look at the pattern.

Notice anything?

 

[Meow Mix]

Read the story.

Look at the pattern.

Notice anything?

I've read it, so let's skip to the point where you answer the questions

(That sounded rude on my part but I assure you it was meant teasingly in good spirits)

 

[Atomist]

I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't explain why:

1) An ark was necessary whatsoever, or putting animals into it, if the flood was local

2) Why Noah wasn't able to find land in 40 nights (with respect, is he an idiot... or just that bad of a navigator?)

3) What did God's promise of the rainbow mean, then -- that He wouldn't flood local areas anymore? If so, how do we explain all the local floods since then -- blame it on the Devil?

As much as I enjoy this type of conversation... I almost find it pointless because this is what always happens to me:

[0) theist tells myth]
1) atheist shows flaw in myth
2) theist "fixes" problem
3) atheist points out that "solution" causes more problems

repeat until either:
1) theist decides that the atheist is possessed by satan/hardened heart
2) atheist can't find a flaw in reasoning, but still doesn't accept the story anymore than someone would accept unicorns as real since they're "logically consistent"

I'm almost tempted to just start telling religious people that I'm a satanist and save us both the trouble... but I never do since it's so much fun

 

[Bowman]

I've read it, so let's skip to the point where you answer the questions

(That sounded rude on my part but I assure you it was meant teasingly in good spirits)

If you actually read it - which I doubt...then you must have observed its numerical construction, yes?

 

[Meow Mix]

If you actually read it - which I doubt...then you must have observed its numerical construction, yes?

I've read the entire Bible, sir -- though indeed it's been since I was a little girl. I've read parts since then and own a really nice leather bound KJV that was a gift from a friend.

Now, can we stop pussyfooting around and have you answer the question please?

 

[Bowman]

I've read the entire Bible, sir -- though indeed it's been since I was a little girl. I've read parts since then and own a really nice leather bound KJV that was a gift from a friend.

Now, can we stop pussyfooting around and have you answer the question please?

You read it, but never bothered to study it.

Just like most people.

Now...if you had studied the flood account, then you would have realized that it is a chiasm.

 

[gnostic]

Now...if you had studied the flood account, then you would have realized that it is a chiasm.

What's a chiasm?

 

[Bowman]

What's a chiasm?

Wiki-it like your sister is right now...

 

[kai]

You read it, but never bothered to study it.

Just like most people.

Now...if you had studied the flood account, then you would have realized that it is a chiasm.

chiasm?

Chiasm may refer to:
Chiasm (musical project), an electronic music project by Emileigh Rohn
Optic chiasm, the part of the brain where the optic nerves partially cross

Chiasm encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

 

[Meow Mix]

You read it, but never bothered to study it.

Just like most people.

Now...if you had studied the flood account, then you would have realized that it is a chiasm.

Chiasm -- a crossing or intersection of two tracts?

I'm not sure how this answers my questions, and I'm seriously starting to get annoyed at the way you're presenting your argument. The first time I was just playing around, the second time I was asking a little more seriously, now this time I'm just starting to wonder why you've switched gears from thoroughly answering most posts to doing all this inane dancing around.

If you asked me a question about physics I wouldn't say "Gosh I bet you haven't read Feynman's lectures have you" and then leave you hanging... then when you asked for clarification say "Read this entire book and learn its entire history yourself" and then leave you hanging... and then say "Ok here's a hint, quantum chromodynamics, wiki it." Can you see how that's a little aloof and well... reeks of dodging a legitimate question?

Can you please just answer my questions with a brief explanation of each without being cryptic and asking me to devote my life to studying the Bible and its exegesis in order to get my questions answered? Can you see how that's a little absurd to expect?

 

[Skeptisch]

1. "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
   God purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey.
2. "In the beginning" 1:1
   When was the universe created?
3. "In the beginning" 1:1-2
   The Gap Theory
4. The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
5. God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
6. God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
7. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
8. God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11
9. In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
10. God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16:dan:

 

[AxisMundi]

So you can reliably place the location of the source of the flood story at Mt Damavand then?

Can you reliably claim it was indeed a "local" flood, and not the world inundating flood your bible claims several times over?

 

[AxisMundi]

You read it, but never bothered to study it.

Just like most people.

Now...if you had studied the flood account, then you would have realized that it is a chiasm.

The simple fact that you cannot answer simple questions, isntead returning attempted insult, illustrates perfectly your complete and utter intelelctual bankruptcy.

I sincerly hope you do not frequent forms such as this to convince people your "intirpritation" of your bible is the correct one, because to be quite frank your credibility is pegged hard at zero.

 

[DeitySlayer]

You read it, but never bothered to study it.

Just like most people.

Now...if you had studied the flood account, then you would have realized that it is a chiasm.

The total incoherence of that phrase kinda reminded me of Kent Hovind pleading 'subornation of false muster' in defence of a tax-scam charge.