What do you all think about this paper/article?

[Astrid]

Good try - did you watch the video right through?

More than enough.

Of course there never was an ark so it's kinda moot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course there never was an ark so it's kinda moot.

How moot is your Tin Hau Festival?

Do atheists defame your festival like they defame our Ark Encounter?

I doubt it.

Satan knows his own.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Heck, Ron Wyatt also found the lost covenant
Ark!

Oh, no, Ron Wyatt. Discovers everything (or at least pretends to). He's the kind that watched Indiana Jones and thought "Hey I could find the lost ark."

 

[Hans Blaster]

How moot is your Tin Hau Festival?

Do atheists defame your festival like they defame our Ark Encounter?

I doubt.

Satan knows his own.

It looks a lot more fun than Ken Ham's boat shaped building.

 

[dlamberth]

It looks a lot more fun than Ken Ham's boat shaped building.

It does look like something I'd like to see.

 

[AV1611VET]

How moot is your Tin Hau Festival?

Do atheists defame your festival like they defame our Ark Encounter?

I doubt it.

Satan knows his own.

It looks a lot more fun than Ken Ham's boat shaped building.

It does look like something I'd like to see.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That it's attempting to ground fictionalized accounts in events that likely actually happened. This is pretty old hat.

I do like that he spends a good bit in consideration of the Gilgamesh flood tale, but one wonders if his dating pushes the "flood" even further back in time, therefore, separating the biblical account even further from the event, and we have the original flood story, why even consider the biblical account? It's obviously borrowed and embellished being so far removed. How can you trust that any detail in the biblical account wasn't just added?

Why should the Biblical account be considered anything but accurate? For example, the ark in the Gilgamess account is supposedly square. It would be useless in anything but a calm pond. Other cultures have accounts of a flood, but they add obviously mythical details. This is unsurprising given that the accounts are by people who had no knowledge of God and were going on history. Even modern historians have trouble agreeing on the details of something as recent as WW2. For example, there is a myth that WW2 was won by the USA alone. In reality, Russia was one of the main reasons for Germany's defeat. The Pacific war was apparantly won solely by the USA. Except it wasn't.

People often guilty of portraying events from a biased perspective. The Bible is God's word. Whatever the actual date of the flood, it happened as recorded in the Bible.

 

[dlamberth]

People often guilty of portraying events from a biased perspective. The Bible is God's word. Whatever the actual date of the flood, it happened as recorded in the Bible.

And if God's own Creation has no record of said flood? What then?

 

[Lost Witness]

And if God's own Creation has no record of said flood? What then?

Rainbows.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Other cultures have accounts of a flood, but they add obviously mythical details.

People often guilty of portraying events from a biased perspective.

Why should the Biblical account be considered anything but accurate?

Case in point.

The Bible is a book of fables. Those fable present "history" that is pretty obviously "anything but accurate" and embellished with "obviously mythical details." It's almost like maybe you might be looking at those "events from a biased perspective."

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Rainbows.

Rainbows existed before the flood. Unless you think god actually changed the laws of physics and how light refracts through water after the flood just so there would be rainbows?

 

[Astrid]

Why should the Biblical account be considered anything but accurate? For example, the ark in the Gilgamess account is supposedly square. It would be useless in anything but a calm pond. Other cultures have accounts of a flood, but they add obviously mythical details. This is unsurprising given that the accounts are by people who had no knowledge of God and were going on history. Even modern historians have trouble agreeing on the details of something as recent as WW2. For example, there is a myth that WW2 was won by the USA alone. In reality, Russia was one of the main reasons for Germany's defeat. The Pacific war was apparantly won solely by the USA. Except it wasn't.

People often guilty of portraying events from a biased perspective. The Bible is God's word. Whatever the actual date of the flood, it happened as recorded in the Bible.

Why? The 10,000 ways of disproving it would
be a start.

 

[Astrid]

Rainbows.

Must of been a surprise when they suddenly appeared
on other planets throughout the universe.

 

[Astrid]

And if God's own Creation has no record of said flood? What then?

Why then you pretend there is.

 

[Astrid]

Oh, no, Ron Wyatt. Discovers everything (or at least pretends to). He's the kind that watched Indiana Jones and thought "Hey I could find the lost ark."

Then there's walt brown the hycroplate guy.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is a book of fables.

That's what Yasser Arafat thought too.

Thinking the Jews had no right to their "Promised Land."

He took that attitude to the grave with him.

And despite what academia thinks today about Israel being in their "Promised Land," Israel still stands.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Case in point.

The Bible is a book of fables. Those fable present "history" that is pretty obviously "anything but accurate" and embellished with "obviously mythical details." It's almost like maybe you might be looking at those "events from a biased perspective."

... as if "atheists" can be assumed to automatically look at the world, or the bible, in an unbiased way.

If you can say that and get away with it, then I'm pretty sure I'm not biased either.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

... as if "atheists" can be assumed to automatically look at the world, or the bible, in an unbiased way.

If you can say that and get away with it, then I'm pretty sure I'm not biased either.

No need to put "atheist" in quotes. I actually am an atheist. And yeah, I am biased by reality. But I was just pointing out that making the accusation of bias cuts both ways. You've just reaffirmed that.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That's what Yasser Arafat thought too.

Thinking the Jews had no right to their "Promised Land."

He took that attitude to the grave with him.

And despite what academia thinks today about Israel being in their "Promised Land," Israel still stands.

This has nothing to do with anything. All people die. And what does "academia" think with regard to Israel that makes this post relevant to anything in this thread? You know the country has only been a country for about 80 years and despite what your holy book says the Jewish people have always inhabited that land along side all the other Semitic people that lived there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No need to put "atheist" in quotes. I actually am an atheist. And yeah, I am biased by reality. But I was just pointing out that making the accusation of bias cuts both ways. You've just reaffirmed that.

I know you're an atheist. And I'm an existentialist. I'm also biased by reality, and I don't assume that I can know there is or isn't a God either way.

You're right, though----Epistemology does cut both ways. but it can't be said that I'm reaffirming anything because you apparently don't know the first thing about "my" position, Ibanezer.

I'm pretty good about smacking down confirmation bias when it rears its ugly head........................wherever I find it.