Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
What would you do if the Ark was discovered?; ...would it change your mind
Topic Started: Apr 27 2010, 09:53 AM (785 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Luke's Dad
Apr 27 2010, 11:55 AM
Yup
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Cool!
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Lord, what's a cubit?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
John D'Oh
Apr 27 2010, 10:44 AM
If they found the remains of a boat large enough to house two of every single living creature in the world plus food for over 40 days and 40 nights AND keep them from killing each other then yes, I'd be convinced. Convinced that someone had slipped something pretty damn fine in my drink.
Maybe all the animals were cute little baby animals.


Posted Image
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Global warming FTW!

It would change my mind, as I am one of those that think it was not a fact as we understand it today. However, much more likely to see this turn out to be somebody's multi-roomed cabin.

Reminded me of reading about Tiohuanacu (sp?) and Puma Punku in Bolivia. It now sits on a plain about 2000 feet above sea level, but once was a sea bed, then a seashore. So, maybe this mountain site with the "ark" used to be at a much lower elevation thousands of years ago and was the location of a village or some such thing.
Edited by Kincaid, Apr 27 2010, 12:32 PM.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Piano*Dad
Apr 27 2010, 12:26 PM
Lord, what's a cubit?

I'm glad you asked!

A "cubit" is the length of one forearm.

But that's crazy you say, why in the world would anyone pick such a variable and arbitrary body part to use for standardized length?

Actually, people's forearms are all VERY similar in terms of length, so if you're going to use body parts as standardized measurements, this is a pretty good one to pick.

...Incidentally, some key Wing Chun concepts and principles are based on this, and it's another reason why the martial art suits so many different kinds of people, not just big or small, male or female, young or old, etc. "Elbows strong as steel, forearms soft as a blade of grass." :biggrin:
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I guess I'm wondering - for those who say it would change their opinion of the Bible - why this one discovery would make such a change? There's already sufficient evidence to point to significant historical substantiation for some of the Bible's claims, and significant evidence that other parts of it are more allegorical.

Don't get me wrong; if it changes someone's mind to be more accepting of its message, I'm all for it. But I don't see how this one find would tip the scales in any major way from what we currently know about the Bible and its nature.

For example, did the Hebrews actually take possession of the land of Canaan exactly as is recounted in the Book of Joshua? Did Joshua and his army truly capture all the cities listed militarily, and did he kill every living thing in many of the cities (or even just the men in others)? No; the archaeological record generally doesn't support that many of the cities listed in the book were violently destroyed in the time of Joshua (in fact, even the book of Judges tells a different account of the occupation of Canaan than we find in Joshua). In fact, only a few of them show signs of violence during this time. There is no evidence of such widespread human slaughter - and frankly, Jews and we Christians should be relieved at the fact that there is no physical evidence to suggest that the Hebrews were being told to, or that they did, commit genocide in the name of YHWH.

But there is a lot of archaeological evidence to show that Canaan did see a major population expansion in the precise areas listed in these biblical accounts. This record shows that the culture of those occupants was largely similar to the earlier Canaanite cultures they displaced, yet it had some distinct differences. A notable difference was the almost complete absence of pig bones in the trash of these cities. Pigs were perfectly acceptable in Canaanite culture, but obviously not in Hebrew culture. This new culture quickly overtook and replaced the earlier culture, but it occurred through assimilation and population.

But, if hundreds of years later, you're trying to convey how the Hebrew people came to so thoroughly occupy the land - as well as to explain how there were still Canaanites living amongst the Hebrews - you're likely to explain it in a military sense, consistent with the accepted military tactics at the time of the story's oral formation. The kind of killing told about in Joshua was, in fact, common, acceptable, and assumed, in this time. So if the Hebrews had come to occupy this land from other people, that military explanation *must* have been how it occurred. And if there are still some Canaanites living amongst us, it *must have been because some of the Canaanites had tricked the Hebrews into forming an alliance with them (Joshua 9), or because someone hadn't carried out God's alleged command to kill every living creature from some city or another.

The archaeological record shows that it occurred with much less military action and violence, and much more peaceful assimilation.

On the other hand, there is significant historical documentation for the events at very least occurring from around 600 BCE and onward; and a some historical corroboration for events recorded before that. (I'm getting tired of typing; I'll leave it at that for the moment)

Both of these combine to tell us that the Bible is not a science textbook, and not a history textbook. It was never intended as such. It includes much history, and much allegory. Regardless of whether a particular passage is history or allegory, the book as a whole is concerned with conveying truths about the nature of God and of us, and of the relationship between us. The fact that we can find historical disjoints such as the Joshua conquest, and now place that side-by-side with what the texts say, allow us to understand even more pointedly what the original authors and editors were trying to say - the point they were trying to make. And that helps us to understand that, when we consider the Bible to be inspired by God, just what that inspired purpose actually is.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Kincaid
Apr 27 2010, 12:31 PM
Global warming FTW!

It would change my mind, as I am one of those that think it was not a fact as we understand it today. However, much more likely to see this turn out to be somebody's multi-roomed cabin.

Reminded me of reading about Tiohuanacu (sp?) and Puma Punku in Bolivia. It now sits on a plain about 2000 feet above sea level, but once was a sea bed, then a seashore. So, maybe this mountain site with the "ark" used to be at a much lower elevation thousands of years ago and was the location of a village or some such thing.
This site is about 2000 feet higher than any village or dwelling found on the mountain.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Maybe it was the summer palace of the local chieftan back then.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quagmire
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Aqua Letifer
Apr 27 2010, 12:31 PM
A "cubit" is the length of one forearm.

But that's crazy you say, why in the world would anyone pick such a variable and arbitrary body part to use for standardized length?

Actually, people's forearms are all VERY similar in terms of length, so if you're going to use body parts as standardized measurements, this is a pretty good one to pick.
Hence the reason the "pubit" never gained popularity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Let me guess...that's how they invented the foot long ruler, eh Quag? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Piano*Dad
Apr 27 2010, 12:26 PM
Lord, what's a cubit?

'Noah?'

'Yes, Lord?'

'How long can you tread water?'

and you can never forget 'Riiight..... who is this REALLY?'

Classic. I still have the albums.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PattyP
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Would it change my mind? Heck, no. I'm already there.

(But you guys already knew that, huh? :D )

A tired dog is a good dog.

"Dogs' lives are too short...their only fault, really."
A.S. Turnbull
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 27 2010, 12:33 PM
I guess I'm wondering - for those who say it would change their opinion of the Bible - why this one discovery would make such a change? There's already sufficient evidence to point to significant historical substantiation for some of the Bible's claims, and significant evidence that other parts of it are more allegorical.

Don't get me wrong; if it changes someone's mind to be more accepting of its message, I'm all for it. But I don't see how this one find would tip the scales in any major way from what we currently know about the Bible and its nature.

If you're talking to me, I should be clear....I meant that if, by some hard to fathom possibility, the story of Noah and his animals were to be proven true, then yes sure, I'd think differently about that story, and might be curious about the possibility of perhaps some other far fetched stories having some validity. But that is all so very hypothetical. I did not mean to suggest that I'd all of a sudden start believing in god, that I'd start believing everything written in the bible. That would be a no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Actually sue, I wasn't directing my thoughts to anyone in particular. My only point was that as we have it today, the Bible is a mixture of things that we know to be historically factual, and things that are allegorical. In my mind, the addition of one other thing in the "historically factual" column wouldn't seem to alter one's opinion from whatever it is currently - which I think is what you just said. ^_^

One's perception of the value of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and the related issue of faith in the God that those scriptures testify to, isn't likely to shift with one piece of data like that. That's why, while I think stories like this one are very interesting, I generally yawn if someone uses a story like this to "disprove," or to "prove," the validity of the content of the scriptures. It's just a bigger, and different, thing than that.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
taiwan_girl
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Interesting topic. I think this topic shows why the coffee room is so good. An interesting conversation starter, some well educated replies on one side and the other (Mr. Dewey and others), some slight veering off the topic, etc.

But to the topic, I agree with a lot of people here that the Bible stories are mainly stories meant to teach a lesson or moral. A lot of the worlds religions have their main book use stories to teach how to act in life. Many of the stories have some background in fact, but everything in the story cannot be taken literally.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2