Did Noah really live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Qur'an is the following verse (29:14) translated in English:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.


Interestingly, there are two different Arabic words used in the verse that are both translated to "years".

Some scholars believed Noah actually lived longer than 950 years, with the 950 years being before the flood and then he lived for some time after the flood.

But the Quran was written after the Hebrew Bible, so the fact that it has the same general story for Noah doesn’t mean it’s literally true.

And the Bible was written after the Indian Vedas. Entirely possible it happened but didn't happen to the people who wrote the Bible.

Fail. No, it is not "entirely possible it happened".

DP. Fail. I'm the poster with the friend who participated in a scientific expedition in the Black Sea. They found absolute evidence that a flood happened that would have affected the Bosphorus. It didn't affect the Mediterranean and isn't the Gilgamesh flood, and who can say about animals going in two-by-two. But a flood absolutely happened in the region and people living in Anatolia and other parts of the region would have known it. For them, this was "the world," so to them, the world was flooded.

Evidence for a local flood event is not evidence for a biblical flood.

Huh? The Bible talks about a flood. Therefore, the flood in the bible is evidence of a "biblical" flood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Sorry, I realize I wasn't completely clear, and you're going to miss the point (again).

1. The flood in the Bible is a "biblical" flood, by definition.
2. There was a historical flood in the Black Sea. To the people in the region, the flood covered the "world" as they knew it.
3. The people who wrote the bible would have known about that flood, and that's probably the flood they wrote about.

This is all basic logic. Keep re-reading if you still don't understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Qur'an is the following verse (29:14) translated in English:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.


Interestingly, there are two different Arabic words used in the verse that are both translated to "years".

Some scholars believed Noah actually lived longer than 950 years, with the 950 years being before the flood and then he lived for some time after the flood.

But the Quran was written after the Hebrew Bible, so the fact that it has the same general story for Noah doesn’t mean it’s literally true.

And the Bible was written after the Indian Vedas. Entirely possible it happened but didn't happen to the people who wrote the Bible.

Fail. No, it is not "entirely possible it happened".

DP. Fail. I'm the poster with the friend who participated in a scientific expedition in the Black Sea. They found absolute evidence that a flood happened that would have affected the Bosphorus. It didn't affect the Mediterranean and isn't the Gilgamesh flood, and who can say about animals going in two-by-two. But a flood absolutely happened in the region and people living in Anatolia and other parts of the region would have known it. For them, this was "the world," so to them, the world was flooded.

Evidence for a local flood event is not evidence for a biblical flood.

Huh? The Bible talks about a flood. Therefore, the flood in the bible is evidence of a "biblical" flood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Sorry, I realize I wasn't completely clear, and you're going to miss the point (again).

1. The flood in the Bible is a "biblical" flood, by definition.
2. There was a historical flood in the Black Sea. To the people in the region, the flood covered the "world" as they knew it.
3. The people who wrote the bible would have known about that flood, and that's probably the flood they wrote about.

This is all basic logic. Keep re-reading if you still don't understand.

No, we don't know there was a Black Sea flood. It was a hypothesis, and subsequent investigations suggest it didn't happen.

But floods in general are common. So the idea of including floods in stories certainly isn't strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Qur'an is the following verse (29:14) translated in English:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.


Interestingly, there are two different Arabic words used in the verse that are both translated to "years".

Some scholars believed Noah actually lived longer than 950 years, with the 950 years being before the flood and then he lived for some time after the flood.

But the Quran was written after the Hebrew Bible, so the fact that it has the same general story for Noah doesn’t mean it’s literally true.

And the Bible was written after the Indian Vedas. Entirely possible it happened but didn't happen to the people who wrote the Bible.

Fail. No, it is not "entirely possible it happened".

DP. Fail. I'm the poster with the friend who participated in a scientific expedition in the Black Sea. They found absolute evidence that a flood happened that would have affected the Bosphorus. It didn't affect the Mediterranean and isn't the Gilgamesh flood, and who can say about animals going in two-by-two. But a flood absolutely happened in the region and people living in Anatolia and other parts of the region would have known it. For them, this was "the world," so to them, the world was flooded.

Evidence for a local flood event is not evidence for a biblical flood.

Huh? The Bible talks about a flood. Therefore, the flood in the bible is evidence of a "biblical" flood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Sorry, I realize I wasn't completely clear, and you're going to miss the point (again).

1. The flood in the Bible is a "biblical" flood, by definition.
2. There was a historical flood in the Black Sea. To the people in the region, the flood covered the "world" as they knew it.
3. The people who wrote the bible would have known about that flood, and that's probably the flood they wrote about.

This is all basic logic. Keep re-reading if you still don't understand.

You know you are trying to backtrack after being shown how flawed your logic is.

The flood in the bible is depicted as a global flood that covered all land on earth.

You trying to argue semantics doesn't defend your inane argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Qur'an is the following verse (29:14) translated in English:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.


Interestingly, there are two different Arabic words used in the verse that are both translated to "years".

Some scholars believed Noah actually lived longer than 950 years, with the 950 years being before the flood and then he lived for some time after the flood.

But the Quran was written after the Hebrew Bible, so the fact that it has the same general story for Noah doesn’t mean it’s literally true.

And the Bible was written after the Indian Vedas. Entirely possible it happened but didn't happen to the people who wrote the Bible.

Fail. No, it is not "entirely possible it happened".

DP. Fail. I'm the poster with the friend who participated in a scientific expedition in the Black Sea. They found absolute evidence that a flood happened that would have affected the Bosphorus. It didn't affect the Mediterranean and isn't the Gilgamesh flood, and who can say about animals going in two-by-two. But a flood absolutely happened in the region and people living in Anatolia and other parts of the region would have known it. For them, this was "the world," so to them, the world was flooded.

Evidence for a local flood event is not evidence for a biblical flood.

Huh? The Bible talks about a flood. Therefore, the flood in the bible is evidence of a "biblical" flood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Sorry, I realize I wasn't completely clear, and you're going to miss the point (again).

1. The flood in the Bible is a "biblical" flood, by definition.
2. There was a historical flood in the Black Sea. To the people in the region, the flood covered the "world" as they knew it.
3. The people who wrote the bible would have known about that flood, and that's probably the flood they wrote about.

This is all basic logic. Keep re-reading if you still don't understand.

You know you are trying to backtrack after being shown how flawed your logic is.

The flood in the bible is depicted as a global flood that covered all land on earth.

You trying to argue semantics doesn't defend your inane argument.

no dog in this fight but i find it funny you are lecturing pp re. logic. carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Qur'an is the following verse (29:14) translated in English:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.


Interestingly, there are two different Arabic words used in the verse that are both translated to "years".

Some scholars believed Noah actually lived longer than 950 years, with the 950 years being before the flood and then he lived for some time after the flood.

But the Quran was written after the Hebrew Bible, so the fact that it has the same general story for Noah doesn’t mean it’s literally true.

And the Bible was written after the Indian Vedas. Entirely possible it happened but didn't happen to the people who wrote the Bible.

Fail. No, it is not "entirely possible it happened".

DP. Fail. I'm the poster with the friend who participated in a scientific expedition in the Black Sea. They found absolute evidence that a flood happened that would have affected the Bosphorus. It didn't affect the Mediterranean and isn't the Gilgamesh flood, and who can say about animals going in two-by-two. But a flood absolutely happened in the region and people living in Anatolia and other parts of the region would have known it. For them, this was "the world," so to them, the world was flooded.

Evidence for a local flood event is not evidence for a biblical flood.

Huh? The Bible talks about a flood. Therefore, the flood in the bible is evidence of a "biblical" flood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Sorry, I realize I wasn't completely clear, and you're going to miss the point (again).

1. The flood in the Bible is a "biblical" flood, by definition.
2. There was a historical flood in the Black Sea. To the people in the region, the flood covered the "world" as they knew it.
3. The people who wrote the bible would have known about that flood, and that's probably the flood they wrote about.

This is all basic logic. Keep re-reading if you still don't understand.

You know you are trying to backtrack after being shown how flawed your logic is.

The flood in the bible is depicted as a global flood that covered all land on earth.

You trying to argue semantics doesn't defend your inane argument.

no dog in this fight but i find it funny you are lecturing pp re. logic. carry on.

LOL. I find it funny you can't read and don't understand what the post was about.

[Anonymous]

Flood or no flood, is it possible humans lived hundreds of years in the past? And most importantly, flood or no flood, do you think it is possible to live 200-300 years now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flood or no flood, is it possible humans lived hundreds of years in the past? And most importantly, flood or no flood, do you think it is possible to live 200-300 years now?

Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood or no flood, is it possible humans lived hundreds of years in the past? And most importantly, flood or no flood, do you think it is possible to live 200-300 years now?

Of course not.

You are happy to believe in a biblical flood, a resurrection of a dead man, and a God no one has seen, but not an extended lifespan? Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most confusing part for me is how Noah's family was able to repopulate the planet by themselves. I think everyone else was drowned per Bible.

INCEST - if you believe the Bible. It never mentions incest, but we know that they had to do it to repopulate the planet.

That’s pretty disgusting. So we are all cousins and half brothers/sisters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood or no flood, is it possible humans lived hundreds of years in the past? And most importantly, flood or no flood, do you think it is possible to live 200-300 years now?

Of course not.

You are happy to believe in a biblical flood, a resurrection of a dead man, and a God no one has seen, but not an extended lifespan? Why is that?

DP. You need to chill. Find a hobby that doesn't involve spending 24/7 being aggressively hostile on a mom's website. And if expanding your interests feels like too much, I hear there are even atheist websites you could hang out on, and maybe they'd be more receptive to your operatic/OTT outrage? Are you MAGA by any chance?

[Anonymous]

I remember being in my Catholic High School basically thinking that everyone in the world could trace ancestry back to Noah if true. Surprisingly, my religion teacher acknowledged that some biblical stories were metaphors/not literal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood or no flood, is it possible humans lived hundreds of years in the past? And most importantly, flood or no flood, do you think it is possible to live 200-300 years now?

Of course not.

You are happy to believe in a biblical flood, a resurrection of a dead man, and a God no one has seen, but not an extended lifespan? Why is that?

DP. You need to chill. Find a hobby that doesn't involve spending 24/7 being aggressively hostile on a mom's website. And if expanding your interests feels like too much, I hear there are even atheist websites you could hang out on, and maybe they'd be more receptive to your operatic/OTT outrage? Are you MAGA by any chance?

LOL. You just can't handle the point being raised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood or no flood, is it possible humans lived hundreds of years in the past? And most importantly, flood or no flood, do you think it is possible to live 200-300 years now?

Of course not.

You are happy to believe in a biblical flood, a resurrection of a dead man, and a God no one has seen, but not an extended lifespan? Why is that?

DP. You need to chill. Find a hobby that doesn't involve spending 24/7 being aggressively hostile on a mom's website. And if expanding your interests feels like too much, I hear there are even atheist websites you could hang out on, and maybe they'd be more receptive to your operatic/OTT outrage? Are you MAGA by any chance?

LOL. You just can't handle the point being raised.

+1. What a lame way to deflect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Qur'an is the following verse (29:14) translated in English:

And We certainly sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand years minus fifty years, and the flood seized them while they were wrongdoers.


Interestingly, there are two different Arabic words used in the verse that are both translated to "years".

Some scholars believed Noah actually lived longer than 950 years, with the 950 years being before the flood and then he lived for some time after the flood.

But the Quran was written after the Hebrew Bible, so the fact that it has the same general story for Noah doesn’t mean it’s literally true.

And the Bible was written after the Indian Vedas. Entirely possible it happened but didn't happen to the people who wrote the Bible.

Fail. No, it is not "entirely possible it happened".

DP. Fail. I'm the poster with the friend who participated in a scientific expedition in the Black Sea. They found absolute evidence that a flood happened that would have affected the Bosphorus. It didn't affect the Mediterranean and isn't the Gilgamesh flood, and who can say about animals going in two-by-two. But a flood absolutely happened in the region and people living in Anatolia and other parts of the region would have known it. For them, this was "the world," so to them, the world was flooded.

Evidence for a local flood event is not evidence for a biblical flood.

Huh? The Bible talks about a flood. Therefore, the flood in the bible is evidence of a "biblical" flood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: DCUM needs to upgrade its atheists.

Sorry, I realize I wasn't completely clear, and you're going to miss the point (again).

1. The flood in the Bible is a "biblical" flood, by definition.
2. There was a historical flood in the Black Sea. To the people in the region, the flood covered the "world" as they knew it.
3. The people who wrote the bible would have known about that flood, and that's probably the flood they wrote about.

This is all basic logic. Keep re-reading if you still don't understand.

You know you are trying to backtrack after being shown how flawed your logic is.

The flood in the bible is depicted as a global flood that covered all land on earth.

You trying to argue semantics doesn't defend your inane argument.

no dog in this fight but i find it funny you are lecturing pp re. logic. carry on.

LOL. I find it funny you can't read and don't understand what the post was about.

I find it funny that you both seem to enjoy trying to make the other look stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most confusing part for me is how Noah's family was able to repopulate the planet by themselves. I think everyone else was drowned per Bible.

INCEST - if you believe the Bible. It never mentions incest, but we know that they had to do it to repopulate the planet.

That’s pretty disgusting. So we are all cousins and half brothers/sisters?

No, it was a long time ago.