Religious text and authenticity

Remove all ads!

haha aye

 

Here is a useful link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood#Ancient_Near_East

and another...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

and another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark#Hoaxes

That's all I can really be bothered with, as I want to do something else...

 

Doesn't the Mormon bible state that the Native Americans are one of the lost Israelie tribes?

Lebor Gabála Érenn or better known in the English speaking world as 'The Book of Invasions' states that the Irish are the descendants of Noah. Of course we know that Celtic Christian monks had changed Irish mythology to be more acceptible to Christians, so such nonsence should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Also - isn't it specified in the Bible how large the ark is? As I remember it was nowhere near large enough to hold that many animals.

If the flood was worldwide - how did Noah get to - say - the kangaroos?

 

Lots of middle-age (or even earlier I suppose) Christian mythology is a distortion of Celtic and Pagan lore, most of it either changing some Pagan figures into Devil figures, or simply "converting" them into Christian figures. Just look at things like Christmas, Easter, and other Christian holidays: most have Pagan roots, and this still shows in some of the traditions (the dyed eggs, Santa Claus, Hogmanay, and so on)

On the subject of the Flood story in the old testament... it's lifted straight out of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which itself has several older Sumerian myths thrown in, and the Flood story is one of them. It's interesting to compare the 2 versions actually: the Old Testament god is nasty (well, he did kill almost everything on the planet), but the Sumerian gods were much worse: their reason for initiating the flood was really boredom and annoyance at the "noise" that humans made.

 

Former no, latter yes. She did have a lover at some point, but she wasn't a prostitute. Magdalene actually is place-derived, but it's based on her estates more than any supposed Roman military camp. And her family owned one third of Israel, anyway, so what point being a prostitute?

 

The Book of Mormon is a record of people that fled Jerusalem apporximately 600 years before Christ (about one of the times it was destroyed or carried into captivity or something for the sins of the people). They were decended from Jacob, who was the father of the sons, whose names are given unto the twelve tribes of Israel.

I don't think they are one of the lost tribes, but decended from one of the tribes that is not lost...

 

Ironically, despite the massive ammounts of time and money have been spent in the effort, absolutely no archaeological evidence backing up any of the events written about in the book of Mormon have turned up.

 

Very true, the Book of Mormon doesn't have any historical weight, the book is a religious text, not a literal history.

 

I have heard of an organization that has found some evidence, but don't know that much about it. It's only something I've heard of.

 

It's FARMS, I think...and it's shoddy in it's research methods.

 

So, the dinosaurs were around at the same time as Adam and Eve. Did they make it onto the Ark as well? Or were they extinct by then?

 

Yes. Mormon missionaries have long used that as a way to get Indiginous Americans to join the church.

Recently, someone got around to actually checking the mitochondrial DNA of native Americans and -- surprise -- they don't have a drop of Jewish blood in them. Needless to say many who converted to Mormonism have since lost their faith.

HB, if you are really interested just look up Creationism web sites. There is much lunacy to be found.

 

Hang on. Aren't we ALL descended from a Middle Eastern couple who lived in a garden a few thousand years ago? How can the native Americans possibly not have that same blood? Are you saying they are not descended from Adam and Eve?

 

Adam and Eve were Africans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

 

Ah, but god is all-powerful; if he can flood the world, he can remove all traces of the world having flooded.

Oh, the joys of circular logic.

 

For me religion text are just entertaining fiction. I mean the Genesis and The Apocalypse is somewhat «fun» to read .

Also It is said in the (Catholic) Apocalypse (the only bible widely available in my family) that when the Big Bad Satan will come on earth to do evil stuff. Everyone who refuse to bear his mark will die. After in the text it says that Jesus, after seven years, will come and kick Satan's ass and purge the earth of evil. Then he says « Thos who refuse to bear the mark of the devil shall leave with me, those who bear it shall go to hell ». Doesn't that sounds awfully incoherent? I mean there won't be any freakin' human who'll be stupid enough to refuse Satan, he's a freakin' ex- Archangel for crying out loud!

incoherent, but entertaining nonetheless.

 

Recently I was told by one of the university therapists on the campus I attend that there are people who believe that God put the fossils in a contradictory order, one that defies all the hypothetical flood models, just so that God could test our faith. How many mental hurdles do you have to jump over to get your head around that lunacy?

And he also told me that one of the chaplains, a Salvation Army lady, commited suicide 2 years ago because she was studying philosophy at the university and couldn't handle the way it contradicted her strict Christian belief. It was too much for her, and she lost all her faith because it was shattered by deconstructionalists.

[ October 30, 2006, 12:42: Message edited by: Nataraja ]

 

Somehow a picture of a little snickering man, placing dinosaur skeletons and stuff, on a newly made earth spring to mind.

 

Once a hypothesis is accepted, everything can be interpreted to support it.