To Flandry

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> TERRY

> Apparently it is documented enough for Christians, but not enough for you.

> And certainly the ark is documented,  however I see no reason why every

> detail has to be documented.  The Bible is already over a thousand pages

> long.  If all these details you are talking about was documented in every

> possible case, its possible you would have to carry around a set of Bibles

> like encyclopedias.

>


WL

The ark is documented????  Terry, most _Christians_ I know don't believe
that
silly story.  Only the few who insist on inerrancy try to explain how the
Flood could have happened, and mostly by displaying the most amazing lack of
grasp of physics, geology, biology, animal husbandry, and livestock
transport
logistics.  In spite of the 'In Search of Noah's Ark' documentaries, no one
has ever found it.  Besides, all the other religions in that area also have
flood stories.  It's probably a legend based on the catastrophic flooding of
the Black Sea basin circa 8000 BC.

POOBAH
I would love to see Terry's, or anyone else's, explanation for how a global
flood c.2500BC could leave no trace in the 420,000 year-old ice cores just
recovered from Antarctica, how the Pyramids & other artifacts from
"pre-Flood" civilizations managed to survive intact, how Egyptian,
Mesopotamian & Chinese cultures managed to exist through the period in
question with no disruption or record. Mind you, these are only a fraction
of the absurdities of the ark tale, but they come back to the question that
Matt Bell fled from, which is, if one rejects the foundations & assumptions
of archeology to the degree that one rejects the conclusions above, how can
one ever claim archeology as supporting the historicity of the Bible?

And if anyone is going to try to shove Noah & his ark into the mists of
prehistory, then I'd like them to deal with the lineage of Abram in Gen11
that fixes the date for the flood in the neighborhood 2500BC.

Of course, Terry will tell us that those are our sources and he has his, but
I would at least be interested in hearing how his sources, or anyone else's,
deal with the archeological problems mentioned above.

And I'd like to see some of the "documentation" for the ark.

• Previous message: To Flandry
• Next message: To Flandry
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]