Noah's Ark was round

[colton]

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

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.

 

[colton]

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 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."

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.

 

[Deleted member 365]

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.

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?

 

[dodo]

As they say in Oklahoma

 

[sgjazzfan]

https://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news...en-Found-Why-Are-They-Keeping-Us-In-The-Dark-

Looks roundish to me.

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

 

[sirkickyass]

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.

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.

 

[TroutBum]

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?

 

[colton]

Isn't the epic thousands of years older than whenever Noah was supposed to have been around?

No, I don't think so. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written a couple of thousand years BC, which is roughly the same time that traditional Bible chronology puts Noah.

 

[colton]

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.

Look in the mirror, then read the bolded statement out loud. Anyway, I don't have time to have a full-fledged discussion on this right now.

Oh, and the Smithsonian's position is apparently this:

Your inquiry of [date] concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.

The Book of Mormon us a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated.

https://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian_statement

 

[Archie Moses]

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?

I wonder if some of them are slightly autistic or acquired savants. Dudes are smart, but have no social skills whatsoever.

 

[colton]

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.

Oh, and just for the record, I think the mention of items/animals that are believed not to exist is a reasonable critique. But I do feel strongly that the lack of DNA evidence is much smoke with no fire.