I'm going to read the Bible, and I'm going to post about it.

No

This thread should be moved to "Humor".

Cobbler - with all of the research, all of the time, all of the effort you've put in to this, have you not found the solutions already provided for these mysteries?

It would be one thing if you just asked: 'how did all of the creatures fit on the ark?' But you've obviously attempted some scholarly research - sorry, can't deem it scholarly if you have not explored all angles.

Which is correct in your numbers listed:
Dog = 480?
Dog = 1?
Canidae = 35?
Canidae = 14?
Canidae = 1?

When you said "species", which did you mean:
Species?
Genus?
Subfamily?
Family?
Suborder?
Order?


But hey, you haven't even gotten to the part about how Noah handled all of the feces. Deserving of its own thread, maybe?

What do you mean, "All Angles."?



By animals I meant that some dog in China wouldn't be the same as some dog in India.



I assume the Bible is where Noah put all the feces.

( Just a joke, sorry. )

So was doing a bit more reading..

Still in Noah's Ark here. Didn't have much time today, due to a Tennis Match, so it's pretty short, but oh well.

We know that "40 days and 40 nights." in the Bible was just an expression for meaning "a long time.", so I was basing my numbers off of 40 days. I found these verses today, though...

"And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days." - Genesis 7:24

"...and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated;" - Genesis 8:3

So the numbers I got were wrong. Instead of multiplying by 40, I would have to multiply by 150. As if 40 wasn't enough, 150 days worth gives us 4,650,000 square feet of food and water. Add that again to the 250,000 square feet of animals, and you've got 4,900,000 square feet of stuff. That's 3,887,500 more square feet than the ark could handle. Almost four times as much as the ark would be able to take.

Oh, all the dogs had to be on there.

While I was guessing your numbers were 80% too high, they're probably about 1000% too low. Your findings are the most important literature since the penning of Genesis itself. Thank G---.....Thank Heav---.......Thank someone that my grandmother wasn't around to hear about this. She would have been devastated.

Do I sense some sarcasm?

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." Ephesians 4:29

Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

Psalm 139, 21-24

Oh, that was good.

And you still have them wrong.

a) The command of not marrying one's sister was not given until after the Exodus.

b) Ownage

Whoa, my bad. I posted like 3 pages late!

[/B]run 4 fun[quote]a) The command of not marrying one's sister was not given until after the Exodus. [/quote]. Thats coincident with evidence for my theory that the Garden of Eden was actually in West Virginia

. Thats coincident with evidence for my theory that the Garden of Eden was actually in West Virginia[/quote]
Life is old there, older than the trees.

Yeah, no kiddin' . . .

The member "real life" cracks me up--Genesis calls for seven pairs (male and female) of clean beasts, and two pair (male and female) of "unclean" beasts. However you want to cut the mustard, that's a whole hell of a lot of any-mules.

Genesis Chapter Seven, verse 2:

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

(This and all subsequent citations, King James Version, source at Bible Gateway-dot-com).)

But it also calls for all the fodder for all of those critters:

Genesis Chapter Six, verses 20 & 21:

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

So old Noah there, allegedly 600 years old (although one of the contradictions of these chapters of Genesis, Chapters Six through Nine, is that he is also described as being in his six hundredth year, which would make him only 599 years old), had to build this monstrous abortion of a vessel, get seven pairs of the clean beasts, two pairs of the unclean beasts, and seven pairs of the birds of the air (Genesis 7:3), and all of their food--plus food for himself, his wife, and his sons and their wives--geezers all. If you care to read Genesis Chapters Seven and Eight, you'll see just how much food that is, because the geezer crew with all of their menagerie were out there for about a year--that's a hell of a lot of food.

But that is just the tip of the absurdity ice berg when it comes to the flood story. The reason "real life" cracks me up is because i've been down this road with him on several occassions.

he dimensions given for the Ark, regardless of the size of a cubit, describe a vessel which would have been unstable from simply the weight of its own construction materials, never mind the load it would have had to have carried, and in calm waters. However, this flood was supposed to have covered the earth--and a planet-wide ocean would have been anything but calm. In what are known as "the roaring forties," the winds are especially strong, and the seas especially high. You can read about the roaring forties in this Wikipedia article, which says, among other things:



But here we have an ocean in which there is NO landmass to slow down the winds and the waves. The vessel described has proportions which will make it inherently unstable, even without the horrendous wind and waves which would have occurred in a planet-wide ocean. The cubit could be anywhere from 20" to 28" inches. Giving the benefit of the doubt, even at 20" inches, the vessel described was more than 450' in lenght--whereas the largest wooden vessel known in historical times was only 400' in length. There is a problem associated with such vessels, which is known as hogging. That it the tendency of the keel vessel to bow upwards due to the overall weight of the wood acting on the least structurally reinforced area, the keel at the beam (center line) of the vessel. The larger a vessel is, the greater the effect of hogging. The more heavily-laden a vessel, the greater the effect of hogging. The result of hogging is that the vessel "starts," meaning the planks separate at the seems, and the vessel ships water, it leaks. So, you've got the largest wooden ship ever built (450' in length, even if you only consider a cubit to be 18"), to be crewed by four old geezer dudes, and four old geezer broads, shipping water constantly in what had the be the roughest seas in history, with seven pairs of every clean beast on board, seven pairs of every bird of the air, two pairs of every "unclean" beast, and all of the food for the geezers and the critters, for one year.

I've gone on for pages and pages on this topic before--showing that on the order of 4000 large trees would have been needed, showing that the given dimensions not only meant a ship which would "hog" as no other ship in history, but an exceedingly narrow ship, with a very shallow draft, which would likely have capsized if you looked at it cross-eyed. I've made reference to Wyoming, and wooden sailing ship which was smaller in length than the Ark, but with more stable relative dimensions, which nevertheless had to have a steam pump continually in operation to keep up with the seepage--you can read about Wyoming at Wikipedia, but unfortunately, because of the parentheses in the link title, i can't link it here.

In short, from the ludicrous description of the vessel, to the thought of eight geezer dudes and dudettes centuries old crewing this vessel, plus the thought of all the beasts and their food, and the **** to be shoveled out of the hold every day--this is the most hilarious story in the Bobble--and that's saying a lot.

Of course, "real life" will show up here with a straight face to attempt to defend the story, just as though the silliness hasn't been shot full of holes time and time again.

Neo, of course, is correct. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't flooded, they were zapped with fire and brimstone--and it was because they were rude to angels.

Genesis 19

1: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2: And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

3: And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6: And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7: And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8: Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

10: But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

11: And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

12: And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

13: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

14: And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

15: And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

16: And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

17: And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

What is really charming is how he was willing to turn his virgin daughters over to the crowd, so the crowd could have their way with them, just so they wouldn't disturb the angels he was partying with. That Lot, he was a wonderful guy. I guess those were the same daughters who slept with Lot after the destruction of the cities. At Abuzz, a rabbi once actually attempted to justify Lot f*king his own daughters, because the purpose was to preserve his line of descent--he spoke as though any reasonable person could see the plausible need for that.

When it comes to havin' a big time, and partyin' on down, you can't be them Old Testament boys ! ! !

Sorry I haven't posted lately, been busy. Will post again tonight.

set. "...And, thou shalt keep fowl and harvest these unto thy needs and that of thy charges. Thou shalt remeberest that theee must consumest all thy parts of these fowl, also unto the McNugget, which, as I hath given thee comest with sauces of three kinds. First there be the sweet and sour, and also rememberest the mustard of hotness, and lastly goeth thy sweet barbeque. These have I given thee to noureshest thou and thy bretheren (and sistern), for the time of tribulation upon the tempest"...

A verse that is often ommited in biblical scholarship.

cobbler .

If you want we can spell you. Ive got a whole bunch of verses memorized as prescribed by Dei Verbum

All except the split-hoof ducks. These be unclean.

But seriously folks, this is the book that the cover of this week's TIME muses should be taught in Public Schools. Why? Because, the editors write, it is the bedrock of Western Culture.

They are correct, of course.

The Bible is where Americans and others got the idea that slavery was permissable, that the Western world's image of women as second class to males was cemented, where disagreements over which set of holy men had the best access to the Ear of God led to Continental wars for the majority of a thousand years and, let us not forget, allowed for the subjugation, ghetto-ization and near extermination of the Jews on more than one occasion.

It is a fine example of what happens when a fairy tale is taken too seriously.

Will the teachers of the Bible in the Public Schools encourage the study of same with a critical eye? Will there be any examination of the above story of the women thrown to the mob? Moral? Immoral? None of the above? Or will they gloss over the gooier parts to get to ones that are more easily swallowed? Focus on what a nice guy Christ was, right.

Joe(It will be an interesting week of study when they get to the Apocalypse.)Nation