Because there is the common threads of WHY the 'gods' wanted to destroy man... that God had destroyed man previous times to the flood, and Gods warning a select group to prepare for the flood, or guiding them to safety, etc... also the severity of the flood... among a few other things.
But really, it would take too long to go through all the examples and peg them to the regions of the world that were impacted... and since it's all based on stories that originate from probably before there was anyone writing these stories down... and so there's no real way to 'prove' any of it in any conclusive fashion.
I have zero problem with belief. It's when you start trying to get me to accept these things as literal fact that I get edgy
Actually, one piece that caught my eye just before the flood was God telling Noah that he would not remain on the earth forever, and that a man is meant to live to 120 years. The thing is that there's research going on with a genetic explanation of why you never really see anyone live past 120... and that's because something happens on the genetic level and once you reach 120 years that it's the limit. That is, until the technology comes about to repair this damage, meaning that you could extend a persons life...
Which is the one point that I will make, is that there isn't really anything in the bible that is specifically contrary to what we've since learned with science... and while I don't believe the stories to be literally true, I do strongly believe that there is more truth to those stories then we might readily accept.
No...it wouldnt. The ice would burn away into water vapor long before it entered the atmosphere and that much water would actually throw the gravitation of the Earth off and probably knock it out of it's orbit.
Ok, the AMOUNT of water on Earth NEVER changes. Ocean levels rise and fall with the shrinking or growing of the polar ice caps. The bigger the ice caps, the lower the ocean levels. A change in the level of the oceans doesnt actually effect how much water there is on Earth.
Actually, some of the northern european and inuit flood myths include descriptions of god melting the northern ice caps... which wouldn't necessarily mean the whole north pole, but as far as they could see...
In the time-frame (roughly) provided, we have a good idea of what our capabilities were and the ark is not within that range.
Right, but there are also many 'anomalies' on the earth that seem to defy what we know about our capabilities throughout history... for example, we are taught that mankind went from hunter gathering societies to master pyramid builders in essentially a blink of an eye, and EVEN WITH today's technology, we'd be hard pressed to recreate this, also, it's said that they were built within 22 years... and engineers have estimated that this would have required over a million workers per **** working non-stop for those 22 years... AND that doesn't include getting the blocks from the quarries some distance away.
Or, easter island would be an anomaly because at the time they were supposedly built the people hadn't started writing, which was is viewed as a pre-requisite to intricate construction...
Then the Nasca(sp?) lines... and there are others as well...
I'm just saying that what we KNOW about our history may not be accurate...
And that evidence consists of what exactly?
I find it a little odd, but to each their own
Look, I don't know what you expect about 'evidence'... but an example of 'evidence' would be that the sphinx was built to align with specific markers, however, with the timeline we're told some 6000 years ago, with the logic going into the design the sphinx should be a Bull... but if you go back to 11000 years and adjust for the earths wobble, then you get the proper alignment with LEO the lion.
That's the best type of 'proof' you might find... so, it again boils down to a matter of faith.
Simply because something cant be disproven doesn't automatically make it true.
There's no way to prove this all either... it doesn't make it false. The point is that even if the 'events' are untrue but are just stories, well... the stories illustrate univeral truths that go beyond the simple matter of whether god actual exists and the actual state that god exists in... I mean whether god is spiritual, energy, or physical being.
My belief in God is not predicated on whether or not the stories contained within the Bible are "literally" true. I do believe Noah existed and I believe there was a great flood and an ark.
I agree, there was SOMETHING that happened to justify this story, precisely the 'what' I'm not sure. I actually believe that Noah was like a 'clan' that survived around for 900 years worth of generations.
That's as good a demonstration of religious faith as any. Believing something in spite of evidence to the contrary.
There's no more 'evidence' to the contrary then there is evidence in verification. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's hard to even put anything definitive down because the bible can be interpreted in probably 100 different ways, not to mention all aspects of the stories that have been lost in translations.
