What's new
By:

Noah's Ark was round

Sirkickyass said:
You dont' want to get into a discussion about the historicity of the BoM. That one doesn't end well.
Click to expand...

Trust me I know all about it. The Book of Abraham is even worse. I just said I found it interesting is all.

Even if I just believe that Joseph Smith just made up all of the BOM and Pearl of Great Price those books still fascinate me. The fact that he could create a book like that would still be incredible. Believer or not...LDS church history and the scriptures associated with the religion are still fascinating.

But Kicky you are an atheist right? And there is plenty of historical accuracies to the New Testament but that doesn't make people believers.
 
Beantown said:
Trust me I know all about it. The Book of Abraham is even worse. I just said I found it interesting is all.

Even if I just believe that Joseph Smith just made up all of the BOM and Pearl of Great Price those books still fascinate me. The fact that he could create a book like that would still be incredible. Believer or not...LDS church history and the scriptures associated with the religion are still fascinating.

But Kicky you are an atheist right? And there is plenty of historical accuracies to the New Testament but that doesn't make people believers.
Click to expand...

I remember kicky saying he was a secular humanist or some such.

Historical accuracy of the bible, as in cities are where it said they were and so forth isn't really proof that the supernatural claims it makes are accurate as well.
 
Am I the only person on the board that feels like Noah's Ark is really just another version of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

The older I become the more I doubt the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

Was "the earth" really flooded? Or is it more of a tale with the moral being, "Be Good"? I think the same could also be said of Job. I'm not sure if all that stuff happened to him. But the moral certainly, "Be true to god and he'll reward you in his own good time."
 
The Thriller said:
Am I the only person on the board that feels like Noah's Ark is really just another version of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

The older I become the more I doubt the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

Was "the earth" really flooded? Or is it more of a tale with the moral being, "Be Good"? I think the same could also be said of Job. I'm not sure if all that stuff happened to him. But the moral certainly, "Be true to god and he'll reward you in his own good time."
Click to expand...

Since every ancient people around the separate continents have both a flood story and a we came from mud story that was passed down for thousands of years by word-of-mouth without significant alteration, no.

Flood and genesis from mud.
 
Yeah. The similar stories from seperate places indicate that there was actually a great flood occurred in a certain era. Most of the approaches to this matter differ more on the reason behind the flood or some other disaster or shift that caused it. You know all that Nibiru (Marduk) stuff even relies on that logic.
 
franklin said:
Since every ancient people around the separate continents have both a flood story and a we came from mud story that was passed down for thousands of years by word-of-mouth with significant alteration, like any other oral history, maybe.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
Early civilizations started on rivers. Rivers flood, sometimes heavily. Heavy floods get exaggerated over the years. Hence, all the ancient civilization had some sort of great flood story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
Sirkickyass said:
You dont' want to get into a discussion about the historicity of the BoM. That one doesn't end well.
Click to expand...

We've probably had this one out before, but for the record--I disagree with you. There are plenty of things that speak to the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Of course, there are also things that don't. But the discussion is not nearly as one-sided as you are implying.
 
The Thriller said:
Am I the only person on the board that feels like Noah's Ark is really just another version of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
Click to expand...

The article from the OP goes into that a bit. Of course, could it as easily be reversed--is it possible that the Epic of Gilgamesh is based in part on the story of Noah's Ark?

The older I become the more I doubt the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

Was "the earth" really flooded? Or is it more of a tale with the moral being, "Be Good"? I think the same could also be said of Job. I'm not sure if all that stuff happened to him. But the moral certainly, "Be true to god and he'll reward you in his own good time."
Click to expand...

Personally I believe that there was a real person, Noah, and a flood--but that the flood was localized and didn't covered the entire earth. As for Job, I wouldn't be shocked to find out some day that his story was purely allegorical.
 
colton said:
The article from the OP goes into that a bit. Of course, could it as easily be reversed--is it possible that the Epic of Gilgamesh is based in part on the story of Noah's Ark?



Personally I believe that there was a real person, Noah, and a flood--but that the flood was localized and didn't covered the entire earth. As for Job, I wouldn't be shocked to find out some day that his story was purely allegorical.
Click to expand...

Isn't the epic thousands of years older than whenever Noah was supposed to have been around? That's essentially what I believe.

All early civilizations were built near water. Flooding your small community would essentially be a flood of the entire globe.

Isn't the general feeling of Job among scholarly types that it was allegorical?
 
As they say in Oklahoma

83886068.jpg
 
I think it is pretty sweet that they are going to try to recreate a "coracle" that is 2/3 the size of a soccer field.
 
colton said:
We've probably had this one out before, but for the record--I disagree with you. There are plenty of things that speak to the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Of course, there are also things that don't. But the discussion is not nearly as one-sided as you are implying.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are truly objective about the subject. I think its demonstrable that virtually all people who examine the issue that don't have a vested interest in the historicity of the document conclude that the narrative is impossible. Certainly that's the position of the Smithsonian institution whenever questions related to the historical nature of the book are asked of it.

I think you're doing work on a number of these issues, such as the mention of items and animals that didn't exist in Pre-Colombian America and the genetic profile of Native Americans, that can only be characterized as apologetics.
 
I wonder why people like Siromar, Tink, and OneBlow feel the need to discredit someone's faith through their superior mental prowess. Live an let live fellas, who frickin' cares?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top