ClumsyMonkey.net

Like, the Ark myth.

If it really did happen, how is it a myth. I'm not too sure what I think about this, besides that it is mostly the concept I take from it.


I know you more than likely won't respond, which is fine by me. But this caught my eye:

Do they believe in the Bible, or in the Book of Mormon?

The way we "interpret" it, both.

There is pretty much zero evidence of any kind in the archeological record to suggest that the world-wide flood that is depicted in the Bible actually occured.

Among the highlights: No sedimentary deposits that would indicate such massive flooding, including a total lack of the sedimentary layer that should contain fossilized remains of all plants, animals, and human civilization that would have been destroyed in the flood.
The Ark itself, a huge creation that was gently set upon a mountain top cannot be found. First, to hold two of every species, and food enough for all of them for 40 days and night would have required a MASSIVE vessel. This was before the discovery of metallurgy, so it would have required purely natural materials, and the amount of time, effort, and material that would have had to go into building the ark is insane.
Also, no trace of the ark has ever been discovered. There's some urban legends floating around about it, but nothing of any substance.
According to the story, all the animals were gathered in one place, then set free to repopulate the world. There is no evidence of such a spread from Turkey (where the ark supposedly landed) or from anywhere else, for that matter.

No scientific evidence for such a massive and widespread event = hard to believe it actually happened.

No scientific evidence for such a massive and widespread event = hard to believe it actually happened.

Which doesn't mean it didn't. I watch too damn much history channel. They exploit the "maybe's".

Actually, there's fairly good evidence for a worldwide flood at the end of the last ice age. Water which had previously been trapped in glaciers and icebergs melted rapidly, causing a worldwide increase in sea level and flooding many coastal civilizations. This is likely why the idea of a Great Flood is such a common theme in the oral traditions around the world.

The rising of waters on the coasts, which I know did happen, is not nearly the total obliteration that the Bible describes. I see where the story came from, yes, but I also see where the story of Apollo's Chariot came from. That doesn't make it true.

No, I don't believe it's true either. But I do think that many legends have at least some basis in fact, and the melting of the glaciers (which created the Black Sea and otherwise fucked up that area of the world) is a worthy candidate for the genesis of that story.

'Sall I'm saying.

This is what I have to say about the bible.

I believe that many of the stories are fabricated. Almost like "the fish that got away" stories passed down from generation to generation amongst families. When a story is told and retold so many times, things get exagerated or misinterpretted. However, I believe that the point of the bible is to have, beneath these stories, a moral code. I believe the foundation is what true Christianity is about. I'm willing to bend for Narbus here and say that if you dont believe all that the bible teaches then you are not a "true" Christian. However, if you understand and follow the fibres of morallity and messages behind the text, then you are at least truly religious and can still be connected to Christ.

I agree about the bible being a basis for moral code.

Some day when I'm home all day and really bored, I'll put together a cover-all of my theories on the development of religion.