Lake Van fits the description God gives in Genesis 8.
I don't know what bible you are reading, because when I read Genesis 8, not only are there no lakes mentioned at all by name, but no specific dimensions are given. And before you bring up the dove thing again, I address it later in this post, so hold on.
It's big enough so that a miles wide firmament/vehicle could fit inside the limits of the Lake and still be further from shore than a dove can fly.
Nope, you are simply wrong about that. I guess you've never bothered to look up how far a dove can fly without landing. The length of Lake Van is about 74 miles, though obviously, if you look at the shape of it, it's not a circle so even if something rested at the center of it, it wouldn't be 37 miles from land in every direction (which would be the case if it was circular). This is because the 74 miles is the measurement of this irregularly shaped lake at its longest points. Not that it would matter, because doves are capable of flying farther than 50 miles without landing. So great job demonstrating that Lake Van doesn't meet your standards. And if you are going to argue that the water from "Noah's World" was sufficient to make the lake so much larger that a dove couldn't reach shore from the center, then the same applies to either of the other 2 lakes I brought up. In fact, the other 2 lakes, which have places where water leaves them, would be better fits in that case.
Again, I ask you: how is Lake Van the only lake that could work with your biblical interpretation? I am also curious as to why you care so much that you keep dismissing Lake Sevan and Lake Urmia as possibilities.
Gen 7:20-24 shows that the Ark was ABOVE the highest mountains on Adam's Earth AND resting upon the mountains of Ararat Gen 8:4 at the SAME time, on the SAME 150th day after the flood began. Try to explain that...
-_- I don't believe it actually happened, so I don't see why I would have to explain it. However, when I actually read the bible, Noah's Ark doesn't touch the top of Mount Ararat until after 150 days have passed, and prior to that point it was floating on water which was at a level above the tallest mountains on Earth. I'd just assume that the water was gradually removed on the 150th day onwards for it to not contradict itself.
The 5k high Lake also sits just above the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers which makes a walk possible into Northern Mesopotamia where Human civilization began AND where History shows that farming, on this planet, began. This is unique and not possible from the south at the time since the first boats had not yet been built.
I want you to think about that for just 5 extra seconds. Who got off the ark again? Might it have been, I don't know, the people that built it? Are you suggesting that Noah and his family were capable of building the ark, but wouldn't be able to build a canoe? Really?
Also, while the oldest boat ever recovered is from 8,000 B. C., evidence of boats via paintings exists as far back as 10,000 B. C. Yes, boats predate agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia. It took me less than 5 minutes to look this up, research before you respond.
By the way, this also means that you think people smart enough to build boats were too stupid to farm.
Only in the attempt of some scientists to acquire grants to show that their site is older than that of the recognized Cradle of Civilization of our Earth according to History.
A nickname it again gets because of it being the site of the earliest known organized cities, not because it was necessarily the first area for growing crops. Furthermore, it wouldn't even matter if the earliest evidence of agriculture was found there if it still predated your required start date based on your biblical interpretation. 11,500 years ago is the generally accepted start of formal agriculture even in Northern Mesopotamia, not a number given by a small number of arrogant people. If I felt like giving the numbers presented by small numbers of people for specific sites, I would have said agriculture began 16,000 years ago. But I would never go by such numbers, because I am aware that people are capable of bias.
Amen. First there was prehistoric people and later, after the Ark arrived, Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived. Today's Science is ignorant of the differences between Humans and prehistoric people.
We have a ton of human DNA sequenced that is within the past 15,000 years; unless you want to claim that Noah's genetics were indistinguishable from that of "prehistoric peoples", you have to accept that the lack of any genetic evidence of crossbreeding that applies to the entire modern human population means science DOESN'T agree with your biblical interpretation. Not only that, but if you do argue that Noah's genetics were indistinguishable that would still be an unscientific position because that is suggesting that intelligence brought into the population wasn't genetic yet could still be consistently passed down. Something for which there is no evidence.
Noah didn't introduce intelligence into the sons of God who were as intelligent as mindless Nature could make them.
You've never stated how smart that actually was. Where do you draw the line of "natural intelligence"? Because you are essentially claiming that people smart enough to appreciate cave painting, make bows and spears, make clothes, and domesticate animals were too stupid to farm.
But I guess Noah was too stupid to use wheels, since they wouldn't appear for more then 3 thousand years after the flood according to your biblical interpretation.
Noah brought his grandsons who had NO other Humans (descendants of Adam) to marry.
Remember, all of Noah's sons brought their wives, so they had the potential to have many children. And they did; Noah has 16 named grandsons. Honestly, what are the chances that many boys were born and not a single girl was? Actually, I calculated the chances of 16 boys being born in a row with no daughters in between: 0.0015%. Given the OT's terrible track record for keeping track of women and their lineages, would you honestly be shocked if the granddaughters of Noah simply weren't brought up? Though, extra-biblical texts actually do mention at least 1 granddaughter of Noah.
They married and produced children with the sons of God (prehistoric people) Gen 6:4 who had left their bones on our Earth for millions of years before the Ark arrived. Noah brought Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 to our Earth.
The events of Genesis 6 are very obviously ones that come before the flood, not after. If you want to argue otherwise, show in the actual scripture how it is reasonable to interpret it otherwise.
You know what? I'll post Genesis 6:1-8, just to make my point.
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
For your biblical interpretation to work, Genesis 6:4 MUST describe an event that occurs after the flood. The bible itself grants absolutely no indication that this is the case; if I interpreted the "sons of God" like you do, they being Neanderthals and the like, I would have to assume that hybrids between various members of the genus Homo predate Noah's flood. Which doesn't exactly mesh well with your ideas, does it?
Produce Human intelligence in ANY other creature if you can. Today's Advanced Science cannot change Apes into Humans (descendants of Adam) BUT evols think mindless Nature did that hundreds of thousands of years ago. The ToE is false and cannot be repeated.
-_- if I bred rats or some other such thing to be as smart as humans, you'd just claim nature didn't do it and that it required human intervention to happen. However, since people have demonstrated that intelligence is a trait one can breed for, and that it can increase overall through selecting for it, you have to demonstrate evidence for your claim that human intelligence has some quality that makes it impossible to develop naturally. Like I said before, give me a brain structure or a gene that cannot evolve that is necessary for human intelligence.
Amen and they looked exactly like Humans (Adam's descendants).
No, they really don't.
https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1593-main-main-big-1415043908.jpg
they had weird faces
http://magazin.woxikon.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Homo-erectus.jpg
https://media.gettyimages.com/illustrations/homo-erectus-illustration-id186450626?s=612x612
I'd never mistake Homo erectus for a member of Homo sapiens, and I have prosopagnosia. There'd have to be something seriously wrong with your vision or mental processes to make that mistake.
They were ALSO innocent and created by God the Trinity which means that they will be present in Heaven.
The bible isn't clear as to whether or not any species other than our own goes to heaven.
They didn't break God's Laws because they were NEVER under them. I respect my ancestors but I also recognize WHEN they suddenly changed into farmers.
Evidence doesn't show agriculture to arrive suddenly; as I said before, test growing predates formal agriculture by about a thousand years. People were dipping their toes into that agriculture pool before diving in.
God's superior intelligence is invisible and available ONLY by inheritance from two of Adam's descendants. It reminds me of our subconscious mind, which is not physical, but records every thought of our lives. Amen?
-_- the subconscious is a physical part of our mind; it's literally the mental processes we aren't consciously aware of, like the parts of the brain that help maintain blood pH and body temperature. To claim that any aspect of our intelligence isn't physical is to disagree with science, so you cannot claim that your biblical interpretation agrees with science.
Not only that, but memory is tangible in regards to how the brain stores it. There are even different neuron structures depending on how well you remember something. There is no solid evidence that the brain memorizes every thought we have; even people with hyperthymesia, a disorder that causes people to have ridiculously exceptional memories about events in their lives, lacks any examples of people that remember literally everything that has ever happened.
