What is the most ridiculous story in the bible?

[Dr.Who]

The story in the bible states that everyone in the world was killed and that the ark came to rest on mount Arrarat.

The story states that the people in the known world were killed. It was common for people to refer to the part of the world they knew about as the world.

Due to rain.

And springs.

This implies that the whole world was covered in rainwater to a depth of a mountain.

It may imply that to you, but to me it says that the part of the world that was effected by the flood was covered to a depth of 15 cubits or 20 feet.

That is more water than is contained in the oceans.

That could be enough water to fill a small sea.

Where did it go?[/QUOTE]

back inside the earth.
back into the oceans.
back into the atmosphere.

Just like it does today when an area floods.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, rational people realise that anyone who takes the Bible literally needs to be, literally, hit round the head with the Bible until they start thinking.

Its not a new idea Dawkins. And I don't think your talking to any fundamentalist Christians here.

I doubt there is a person on earth who takes every single sentence in the bible as literal. When Jesus said he was a door no one thinks he meant he was a door.

The trick is to use some common sense to decide when it is literal and when it is figurative. But this is nothing new. All literature must be interpreted. Even scientists are prone to use figurative language once in a while, like maybe when they talk about the sun rising (it doesn't rise the earth spins). And of course those, like Dawkins, who take things that should be interpreted on way and force them to be interpreted in a silly way just so they can go around claiming that the bible is silly are guilty of error.

 

[BigRob]

Not to mention if you read the text in Hebrew, the word that is used literally means "land" not "world."

 

[Dr.Who]

Maybe not but once anyone accepts that the bible is not literal there are at least 2 major problems for christians.

I don't think there is any literature on earth that does not mix literal language with other types of language. Any problem that exists for readers of the bible also exist for readers of any other type of literature.

One - who can say that their interpretation is correct and on what grounds?

People are expected to use their brains both when interpreting the bible and when interpreting any other data.

Two - why didn't god inspire man to write the bible accurately and in a way that wasn't so embarrassing for his followers in the first place?

[/QUOTE]

There are lots of smart thinkers out there who have interpretations that are not embarrassing and also free of errors.

Meanwhile just about every one of your interpretations is ridiculous by your own admission.

 

[Dr.Who]

And, most christians claim that some parts of the bible are literally true.

Some parts are. For example the bible describes the existence of the Nile river.

As science debunks the stories they just say that those are allegoricals.

No story yet in the bible has been debunked. Though plenty of wrong interpretations have been. But so have many wrong interpretations of the natural data we have about the world. In fact, science has revised it's interpretations of the world far more than theologians have. And there is nothing wrong with that when either of them revise their interpretations.

 

[Questerr]

I don't post here often but these about made my head explode.

Jericho was the worlds first walled city. It probably had the weakest and least technologically advanced wall in history. Did the builders of the wall poor a concrete foundation? No. Did the builders make the base of the wall below ground? Did they even put a layer of rubble inside the larger exterior rocks? Did they compact the ground before they built the wall? If not then it seems very reasonable that compacting the loose soil on the outside of the wall only just might make it fall down.

Jericho was NOT the world's first walled city. The story of Jericho is post-Egypt. Egypt had walled cities. Sumeria had walled cities. The Babylonians had walled cities.

There is nothing biblical or historical about your claim that Jericho was the first walled city. The knowledge of how to build city walls was well known by then. More to the point, there is no reliable archeological evidence for Jericho or the Exodus period.

If a miraculous event was responsible then that is no more unreasonable than saying that the universe began when nothing cause something to suddenly form in a huge "big bang."

You only show that you have no real concept of what the Big Bang (a euphemistic nickname created by a scientist who disagreed with the theory) really was. Science does not support something coming from nothing. The Big Bang is included in this.

 

[Dr.Who]

Jericho was NOT the world's first walled city. The story of Jericho is post-Egypt. Egypt had walled cities. Sumeria had walled cities. The Babylonians had walled cities.

"The first walls at Jericho were built during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period, [(8,500-7300 BC)] indicating that violence and conflict were important parts of Jericho's history for a very long time."
http://archaeology.about.com/od/jterms/qt/jericho.htm

"These knives were being made just at a time when the first walled cities in Egypt were constructed. " [] "They date to the Gerzean and early Protodynastic eras between 5,400 and 5,150 years ago. "
http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2000octobergerzean.htm

The last time I checked 7,300 BC was before 5,400 ago.

But if that was too convoluted then try this source:

"Jericho is the oldest town in the world, dating back more than 10,000 years. It lies 260 meters below sea level, making it also the lowest town on earth. Known as the 'City of Palms', Jericho contains some of the world's most important historic sites and is frequently mentioned in the Bible. Jericho's contribution to civilization is unique. The domestication of plants and animals and the invention of pottery took place in ancient Jericho 1000 years before Mesopotamia and Egypt, while the walls and towers of Jericho preceded the pyramids of Egypt by 4000 years."
http://www.ffhl.org/2006/jericho.asp

There is nothing biblical or historical about your claim that Jericho was the first walled city. The knowledge of how to build city walls was well known by then. More to the point, there is no reliable archeological evidence for Jericho or the Exodus period.

Here is more:

"From 1930-1936 the site was excavated again, this time by British archaeologist John Garstang. Garstang's work revealed the remains of a network of collapsed walls (which he dated to about 1400 BC, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest) that had apparently fallen in a dramatic fashion as opposed to being ruined by abandonment or decay from natural forces. Disagreeing with Sellin and Watzinger's findings, he went on to say that the archaeological evidence did in fact, confirm the destruction of Jericho at the hands of the Israelites. "

and

"While trenching downward through the site she [Kenyan] uncovered the first walled city along with a number of houses and courtyards that had been constructed over 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic. [] Upon further excavation Kenyan maintained that the walls of Jericho had been repaired and rebuilt at least seventeen times. The damage may have been caused by earthquakes. (and this was not from a "friendly" source)
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/jericho.html

Here is another:

"The oldest known city with a defensive wall is Jericho. Dating back to 8000 BC. This city was ahead of it time. By not only being the first city with a stone wall but 2. The outer wall built around 8000 BC and an inner wall built around 7000 BC. It is not only the first walled city but also is clearly the first example of concentric wall design. The outer wall was 6ft thick at its base and currently survives at hight of up to 20 feet!"
http://www.homecastlebuilding.com/castleHistory.html


By the way, how is it that you can claim that there is no reliable evidence for the very existence of Jericho and in the same post state that it was not the first walled city? If you don't know of the evidence for Jericho then you certainly cannot date it's wall!

Here is a biography of a women who excavated Jericho which was written by the Archeological Institute of America.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/kenyon/

 

[Dr.Who]

You only show that you have no real concept of what the Big Bang (a euphemistic nickname created by a scientist who disagreed with the theory) really was. Science does not support something coming from nothing. The Big Bang is included in this.

"Earlier versions of the Big Bang theory had the universe originating from a singularity (a point of zero volume and infinite density, where the laws of physics have no meaning). This has been replaced by the idea that the universe originated from literally nothing at all. According to quantum theory, matter and antimatter particles are created in pairs all the time out of nothing (i.e. vacuum) and cancel each other out with no effect on the universe. They are therefore called virtual particles). At the Big Bang, however, massive amounts of matter and antimatter were created and although much of it was similarly cancelled out with a huge release of energy, matter won the day and spawned the universe as we know it. "

http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/Big_Bang.htm

This one from astronomists:

"The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’."

http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/

Now that person who derided the big bang theory was Hoyle and he said that before the discovery of the background radiation which clinched the big bang theory as the best we have.

When the background radiation was discovered it not only clinched the BB theory as the best but it also prompted these quotes:

“The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”

Fred Hoyle
The Intelligent Universe
New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, 1983), p. 13

“If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202

Compared to the alternative of supposing that matter and energy somehow always existed, British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”

Edmund Whittaker cited in

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 121

Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” (cited by Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Sir Fred Hoyle

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow

“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

Arthur Eddington

I would like you to note that all of these men were scientist and they were talking about the scientific evidence. furthermore for some of them they were opposed to any religious explanation prior to the discovery of the background radiation but had to accept the notion as the best explanation of the facts.

And furthermore, while Hoyle rejected the BB theory in favor of the steady state theory, the steady state theory proposes that matter is created from nothing on a continual bases and not just at the big bang.