Noah's Flood in the Bible

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4312
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Noah's Flood in the Bible

Post by SAM »

manfred wrote:LOL If it SAYS the name then it must be true... why? Because it is the Qur'an.... and of course the Qur'an is by... it says so in the Qur'an, so it must be true because the Qur;an is by ....

dizzy yet?

check out "circulus in probando"

Seriously SAM, who looks stupid here is for those to decide who read this. In Germany, they have a saying: "Paper is patient." Can you work out what it means?
You are mentally retarded who can not prove and show me the name of the author of the Qur'an.

As usual you're runner and spins...:lol:
Last edited by SAM on Sat May 14, 2016 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Noah's Flood in the Bible

Post by manfred »

SAM wrote:
manfred wrote:LOL If it SAYS the name then it must be true... why? Because it is the Qur'an.... and of course the Qur'an is by... it says so in the Qur'an, so it must be true because the Qur;an is by ....

dizzy yet?

check out "circulus in probando"

Seriously SAM, who looks stupid here is for those to decide who read this. In Germany, they have a saying: "Paper is patient." Can you work out what it means?
You are mentally retarded who can not prove and show me the name of the author of the Qur'an.

As usual you're runner and spins...:lol:
You can stop posting this idiotic stuff... It really is beyond belief what you can come up with.

I already told you the authors of the Qur'an in simple words so that you can understand. If you don't like the answer, that is your problem. Perhaps it can point out to you that calling God the author of a disgustingly vile pamphlet like the Qur'an would not only be idiotic, it would be the very definition of blasphemy.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

iffo
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Noah's Flood in the Bible

Post by iffo »

manfred wrote:
Your example of cartoon means nothing. Nobody talks like this about characters who do not exist.
You want en example, you got one, and then you dismiss it as "nothing". Kenny Loggins must be a nobody then.
Either Jesus said "back in days" or he did not and Mathew added those. Both options are not good. If Jesus said it that means Jesus believed in Noah. You may not think that way but that will be the conclusion 9/10 will reach.
99% of Christians do not draw that conclusion, but obviously they are all biased and dishonest, so they do not count. If he said that exact phrase he MAY have believed in a historical Noah, or he merely used the story in such as way the people around him would understand it.
If Mathew added it, which is most likely the case that puts ? mark on everything we know about Jesus and what he said. We don't know what Jesus actually said and what are the words of Mathew or John etc. This is actually the big question critics have that people who wrote about Jesus were never present with Jesus. You say something to one person he passes it on to next and by the time 10th person hears that , messages is completely changed. So how credible are these gospels written years after his death. Perhaps jesus never said, 'love your enemy'.
As I pointed out to you before, Christianity is not like Islam, based on a book. This is only true for fundamentalists, not for most others. Christian beliefs are based on what is called "tradition"for lack of a better word. This is the sum total of ALL we know about Jesus, as he was portrayed by the early Christians, and later discussed and refined. Tradition is open-ended, i.e. new insights are always possible. The gospel texts are merely a part of that tradition. Sure, we cannot be sure of every little detail, but we have a consistent "big picture." In addition to gospel texts, we have writings from some disciples, from Paul and extensive oral tradition and many discussion of later generations. For Christians religion is BASED on the past but not stuck in it.
Question you need to ask yourself why the master planner god, will send his son and had no plan to record what he said and which can be credible.Did he send him for only one generation ?
Well, tell God, next time is does anything, to make sure he has a brigade of people standing by with clipboards.

DESPITE of the absence of the clipboard brigade we have a very good idea of the beliefs early Christians held because they went to great length you bear witness to them. And most Christians are not really worried if the occasional detail cannot be established with certainty.

manfred
As I pointed out to you before, Christianity is not like Islam, based on a book. This is only true for fundamentalists, not for most others. Christian beliefs are based on what is called "tradition"for lack of a better word. This is the sum total of ALL we know about Jesus, as he was portrayed by the early Christians, and later discussed and refined. Tradition is open-ended, i.e. new insights are always possible. The gospel texts are merely a part of that tradition. Sure, we cannot be sure of every little detail, but we have a consistent "big picture." In addition to gospel texts, we have writings from some disciples, from Paul and extensive oral tradition and many discussion of later generations. For Christians religion is BASED on the past but not stuck in it.
I am sure everything you know about your religion you read about it, or who ever told you anything also read from some where. So its all in the books. With out it you know nothing who Jesus was and what was his message. With unreliable text how god expected people to believe in Jesus is beyond me. No all intelligent god will have that expectation.
manfred
You want en example, you got one, and then you dismiss it as "nothing". Kenny Loggins must be a nobody then.
In song and poetry people say all sort of imaginary , unrealistic, fictional things. You are comparing a song to a serious statement made by Jesus . That is not a fair comparison i think.

Its interesting that Jesus knew only what people at that time knew, nothing more. He is sitting among his buddies discussing stories from past, from OT and using them as examples with out making a single correction to them. Talking about Noah , talking about Adam and eve.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Noah's Flood in the Bible

Post by skynightblaze »

manfred wrote:"in the days of yore" is a reference to a romanticised, sugar-coated past, not reality. It about stuff like knights, dragons and damsels in distress.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/days+of+yore" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Correct me If I am wrong but I just checked the link..
Spoiler! :
A time in the past or of a bygone era, especially one remembered nostalgically. Can be used ironically to mock such sentiment. In days of yore, people had to rely on their own hands for the food on their table, not the massively processed food we get from the supermarket nowadays. Many people long for a time gone past when societal roles were clearly defined. They fail to remember, though, that in such days of yore, horrible inequality was rife.
See also: days, of

Time past. “Days of yore” is an archaic phrase once used in historical narratives (e.g., describing tales of King Arthur and his Round Table) and now heard only – and very rarely—in a humorous context. “Yore” comes from the Middle English word for “year,” which echoes its archaism.
See also: days, of
Where does it say that yore is used to refer to imaginary past ? It says that it was a phrase used in describing historical narratives. Historical narratives are not imaginary facts. The quote also says that people are comparing olden times(real era) with the present.
manfred wrote: "golden age" is an expression taken from Greek myth:
The term Golden Age (Greek: χρύσεον γένος[1] chryseon genos) comes from Greek mythology and legend and refers to the first in a sequence of four or five (or more) Ages of Man, in which the Golden Age is first, followed in sequence, by the Silver, Bronze, Heroic, and then the present (Iron), which is a period of decline, sometimes followed by the Leaden Age. By definition, one is never in the Golden Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yes Golden age concept came from a myth and a legend that is of greek origin. However, we do not use golden age in the same sense today. For e.g check the point 2 below.
1. (Classical Myth & Legend) classical myth the first and best age of mankind, when existence was happy, prosperous, and innocent
2. the most flourishing and outstanding period, esp in the history of an art or nation: the golden age of poetry.
3. (Literary & Literary Critical Movements) the great classical period of Latin literature, occupying approximately the 1st century bc and represented by such writers as Cicero and Virgil
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/golden+age" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whenever I have heard about Golden age , I have always heard it to refer to an real era wherein great things were achieved for real. I haven't heard it someone referring to the imaginary greek concept. However, if there is any such reference I would like to stand corrected.

Lastly again the poem is also a fiction written on some other fiction. Fiction will assume characters to be real and write accordingly. The poem also says about talking to owls but we know its a fiction and hence all these things are taken for granted.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Noah's Flood in the Bible

Post by manfred »

Lastly again the poem is also a fiction written on some other fiction. Fiction will assume characters to be real and write accordingly. The poem also says about talking to owls but we know its a fiction and hence all these things are taken for granted.
The talking owl is in itself part of the "Winnie the Pooh "story.

The writer of the poem obviously knows that Winnie the Pooh and Christopher Robin are fictional. That is not the point he is a real person referring in a fictional person using the exact phrase you say nobody would use.

The only thing that is different is the purpose of the text. Jesus used an analogy to teach something else, the writer of the poem did not want to teach but to entertain. The poem itself cannot be classed a fiction has it does not tell a story of its own as such it expresses a feeling or a view.

Where does it say that yore is used to refer to imaginary past ?
Have you never heard the phrase used? The link says is about things "remembered nostalgically", i.e. loosely based on the real past but idealised. It also is used to take the mickey out of people who yearn for a dream world from the past. It is closely linked with Arthur and round table.

As to "golden ages" are you saying the "golden age" of Islam was real, wonderful period?
Its interesting that Jesus knew only what people at that time knew, nothing more. He is sitting among his buddies discussing stories from past, from OT and using them as examples with out making a single correction to them. Talking about Noah , talking about Adam and eve.
What precisely Jesus knew about neither of us are privy to. And yes, he uses the stories as a tool for teaching. I fail to see the problem. I used my watch to teach the Aristotelian concept of "idea", "Nathan the Wise" to teach about tolerance, or a story about a lighthouse to teach about focus and perseverance, and I have seen a wonderful class about growing up and falling in love where the teacher used "the little mermaid" story from Anderson. He didn't explain at all that "the little mermaid" was fiction nor did he give details about the background of the tale. Why not? It simply didn't matter.

For the hundredth time, Jesus MAY have believed in a historical Noah, Adam, Job or Jonah, he would not have been the only one, it was seen in that way by many at the time. It really makes no difference to what he taught. He may have simply gone along with what people believed at the time. He may have used a figure of speech. All these are possible, and it really makes very little difference.

Here is what Jesus did NOT teach: "You must believe the literal description of Noah's flood in genesis." He really had more important things to talk about.

Whatever next, he cannot be "God" because he never mentioned facebook?

It is however a legitimate theological question to ask if Jesus as a man was omniscient. The answer to that is you could not be fully human if you were. In SOME aspects we could say that the bible claims Jesus has divine-like knowledge, i.e. in questions about religion, the human condition and moral judgement. In other questions, such as history or science, the bible makes no such claim, and neither does the church.

Jesus said he did not know the time of judgement day, so he did, by his own words, not know "everything" as a man. What EXACTLY he knew really is a futile speculation.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

AlexmenCorn
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:43 pm

Noahs Flood in the Bible

Post by AlexmenCorn »

Im not going to read every page of the links, which may be wrong of me, but the from the first couple of pages of each I do not find a discussion of what to me is the most important factor, namely why the story of Noah and the flood is included in the bible at all? What is its meaning for the progress of mankind?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Noahs Flood in the Bible

Post by manfred »

AlexmenCorn wrote:Im not going to read every page of the links, which may be wrong of me, but the from the first couple of pages of each I do not find a discussion of what to me is the most important factor, namely why the story of Noah and the flood is included in the bible at all? What is its meaning for the progress of mankind?

The story of Noah simply has been part of Jewish and later Christian tradition for a long time. It is one of several Middle Eastern flood stories. So it seem that the authors of this story took older well known material to tell a new story, one with a specific religious twist to it. They message is found repeated in a number of places, such as the Psalms.... the apparent success and wealth of wicked people is temporary, it will pass like a piece of straw in the wind. But those who trust in God will find he will not abandon them.

As such is a an idea ON THE WAY towards understanding the idea of God, as the bible on the whole is a record of how people's religious ideas grew and developed.

Look at the bible as a collections of very diverse literature, from periods up to 1000 years apart. It has many authors, and each wrote down for posterity what he thought was important to remember. Some things are really very poignant today, while others have little or no connection to our time. It is up to you, the individual reader to make of all that wealth of writing something that has meaning to you.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply