Is there an earlier ark epic?

[Subduction Zone]

The person who wears the spiderman costume however is a real person, bad analogy.

Wrong again, there have been actors that dressed up as Moses. No difference.

I don't see any reason to tell a Christian that Jesus was a fictional character, I don't see any reason to tell a Muslim that Allah is a fictional character, even if they are.

Why not?

I do however approach those fictional characters as borrowed from culture to culture, hence, my goal is not to destroy someone's faith. Actually the opposite, my goal is to hopefully have the person leave a conversation with a hope that they will conduct proper research.

That will not work with hardcore believers. They have massive cognitive dissonance when their ideas are shown to be wrong. That is why there are so many creationists in the U.S., and now the Flat Earth beliefs are seeing a resurgence.

If you want to approach people in their faith that way, that is up to you.

Fine different approaches to the same problem.

I don't want to bash atheism, I'd rather bash you, you are an example of negativity and lunacy coupled. Negative because you want to destroy people's beliefs and lunacy because people don't generally turn from their beliefs easily, especially when attacked in such a way. You aren't exposing anything as false, you just make pointless inflammatory statements.

I seriously doubt if you could. And I may be negative, but lunacy? Not even close. Once again you appear to be projecting. And no, my none of my posts are pointless. You may not be able to understand them. You seem to over value your own intellect. But none of my posts have been pointless in response to you. And I often post more for the lurkers than the posters. Posters tend to rarely change their minds. I tend to stick with the sciences and I have yet to see a creationist that understands the nature of evidence.

Meanwhile you are no "white knight" yourself. You tend to attack whenever your faults are brought up. Not the best of strategies.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Wrong again, there have been actors that dressed up as Moses. No difference.



Why not?



That will not work with hardcore believers. They have massive cognitive dissonance when their ideas are shown to be wrong. That is why there are so many creationists in the U.S., and now the Flat Earth beliefs are seeing a resurgence.



Fine different approaches to the same problem.




I seriously doubt if you could. And I may be negative, but lunacy? Not even close. Once again you appear to be projecting. And no, my none of my posts are pointless. You may not be able to understand them. You seem to over value your own intellect. But none of my posts have been pointless in response to you. And I often post more for the lurkers than the posters. Posters tend to rarely change their minds. I tend to stick with the sciences and I have yet to see a creationist that understands the nature of evidence.

Meanwhile you are no "white knight" yourself. You tend to attack whenever your faults are brought up. Not the best of strategies.

Wrong again, there have been actors that dressed up as Moses. No difference.



Why not?



That will not work with hardcore believers. They have massive cognitive dissonance when their ideas are shown to be wrong. That is why there are so many creationists in the U.S., and now the Flat Earth beliefs are seeing a resurgence.



Fine different approaches to the same problem.




I seriously doubt if you could. And I may be negative, but lunacy? Not even close. Once again you appear to be projecting. And no, my none of my posts are pointless. You may not be able to understand them. You seem to over value your own intellect. But none of my posts have been pointless in response to you. And I often post more for the lurkers than the posters. Posters tend to rarely change their minds. I tend to stick with the sciences and I have yet to see a creationist that understands the nature of evidence.

Meanwhile you are no "white knight" yourself. You tend to attack whenever your faults are brought up. Not the best of strategies.

Brings me back to my point, which is, I am not here to destroy someone's "faith" if you will. Just bringing a different view point is all.

Whether it works or not, I am not one to approach a believer with hostility. Now if I am met with hostility I will react. Other than that, I don't have any reason to attack someone unless I am attacked to begin with.

In this instance it's you I'd rather bash. Whatever you "think" would happen if I aggressively attacked an atheist is between myself and the atheist, not you.

I never claimed to be a "white knight", I am only giving information that I put out, either you read it or you don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brings me back to my point, which is, I am not here to destroy someone's "faith" if you will. Just bringing a different view point is all.

Whether it works or not, I am not one to approach a believer with hostility. Now if I am met with hostility I will react. Other than that, I don't have any reason to attack someone unless I am attacked to begin with.

The problem is that you make nonsensical claims that you are not able to support and then attack people that are merely trying to correct you.

In this instance it's you I'd rather bash. Whatever you "think" would happen if I aggressively attacked an atheist is between myself and the atheist, not you.

See above. You just admitted that you would rather bash me than address your errors.

I never claimed to be a "white knight", I am only giving information that I put out, either you read it or you don't.

Please, you are not fooling anyone. You are pretending to be one. And your "information" is rather weak at best.

 

[ShamashUruk]

The problem is that you make nonsensical claims that you are not able to support and then attack people that are merely trying to correct you.



See above. You just admitted that you would rather bash me than address your errors.



Please, you are not fooling anyone. You are pretending to be one. And your "information" is rather weak at best.

That isn't non sensical, I don't want to attack someone's faith in that manner. I'd rather people are interested in what I have to state and not interested in having some inflammatory discussion, like this one.

I'd rather bash you, because I'd don't like you, I don't like you because, well I've already stated what it is you do that is irritating.

I am pretending, how? My information generally is set for a religious purpose and its histories, you being an atheist are far from religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That isn't non sensical, I don't want to attack someone's faith in that manner. I'd rather people are interested in what I have to state and not interested in having some inflammatory discussion, like this one.

I'd rather bash you, because I'd don't like you, I don't like you because, well I've already stated what it is you do that is irritating.

I am pretending, how? My information generally is set for a religious purpose and its histories, you being an atheist are far from religion.

Not liking someone because they are able to refute your nonsense and give you corrections and advice is not very logical.

And thank you, you finally complimented me at the end of a post.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Not liking someone because they are able to refute your nonsense and give you corrections and advice is not very logical.

And thank you, you finally complimented me at the end of a post.

I don't like you, because you assert lunacy.

It isn't a compliment, you are an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't like you, because you assert lunacy.

Nope, this is just another bogus claim of yours that you cannot support.

It isn't a compliment, you are an atheist.

It was, but sadly you did not understand it.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Nope, this is just another bogus claim of yours that you cannot support.



It was, but sadly you did not understand it.

See my other posting.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but what do scholars think the dimensions of the ark signify?

 

[ShamashUruk]

Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but what do scholars think the dimensions of the ark signify?

Measurements in Cubits are only representational of the system in place during the early Israelite culture and some surrounding cultures. In early Mesopotamia the measurement would have been taken into consideration and depending on which flood epic is represented.

There are numerous flood epics, this is why I don't recommend getting hung up on the epic of Noah.

Flood Stories from Around the World

lists a whole host of flood myths from around the world, the earliest being Sumer, and then Akkadian, and so on.

In Sumer you'd see an "EN System E" which counted weight, and about 2640 BC you would have seen a Cubit of Nippur, so measurements essentially are nothing considered to be "holy".

It is most likely that a boat was built and that someone did occupy a boat, but not for religious reasons.

The rivers of the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and possibly near Al-Shatt Arab (rivers) would have overflowed in Sumer, and at various times. Hence, we see the need for boat building, but boats during the times of the Sumerian's would have been built by Inflated Sheep bladders and would have used reed huts.

The Biblical boat of Noah would have been impossible to build, as the wood "Gopher Wood" or Tevah is mistranslated, so determining what king of "wood" was used would be impossible. Also, Tevah is a loan word from Babylon.

This would then implicate that any other translations after the original writing in Genesis would further "muddy" the translation itself.

 

[cloudyday2]

Measurements in Cubits are only representational of the system in place during the early Israelite culture and some surrounding cultures. In early Mesopotamia the measurement would have been taken into consideration and depending on which flood epic is represented.

There are numerous flood epics, this is why I don't recommend getting hung up on the epic of Noah.

Flood Stories from Around the World

lists a whole host of flood myths from around the world, the earliest being Sumer, and then Akkadian, and so on.

In Sumer you'd see an "EN System E" which counted weight, and about 2640 BC you would have seen a Cubit of Nippur, so measurements essentially are nothing considered to be "holy".

Hmmm. It seems to me that the dimensions wouldn't be stated numerically unless they are significant to the culture that invented the story. Genesis could have said "And God said 'I want you to make that Ark really, really, really BIG.'"

You know how certain numbers were significant in various cultures - 60, 12, etc. That's what I wonder on those dimensions. They might symbolize some ideas.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Hmmm. It seems to me that the dimensions wouldn't be stated numerically unless they are significant to the culture that invented the story. Genesis could have said "And God said 'I want you to make that Ark really, really, really BIG.'"

You know how certain numbers were significant in various cultures - 60, 12, etc. That's what I wonder on those dimensions. They might symbolize some ideas.

Oh yes, well if you wanted to, you can look at the Sumerian King's List, some of those kings ruled for many Sars, one king in Sars ruled a total of 12,000 years. The reason for this is that the King was attributed to a God, so part of the King's life the King is a God and the other part a human being.

We see the same in Biblical myths as people lived up 900 years old, they aren't attributed to a God, but God may have let them live that long and then they die at a ripe old age.

I am not sure how numerology would be equated into boat building at all, that is of course assuming there was a Noah's ark or even an ark for Ziusudra.

Most likely a Sumerian built a boat due to flooding of one of those rivers and it became a local legend, and the story grew from there.