To ask a stupid question? Noah's Ark

Oh dear.

How many people did Jesus feed with fish and bread? How much fish and bread was there?

What happened at the resurrection? Who went to the cave?

Different accounts in different gospels.

Exactly that was my question, the poster said that the Hebrew bible is viewed to be a historical source in and as of itself which therefore affirms the existence of the people referenced in it? Does the same logic apply for Noah and Abraham?

to me that seems a bit like the museum at topkapi palace in Istanbul, claiming to have Abraham’s cooking pot and Joseph’s very turkic turban

so scholars attest that as the Hebrew bible references Noah and Abraham those too are historical?

Well, exactly. The Torah also references the nephilim, talking animals, Samson losing his strength because of a haircut, people living hundreds of years, giants, and angels that looked like wheels covered with eyes. I'm guessing that the average scholar wouldn't say that those are all literally true.

took a slightly patronising turn there…

who are the scholars who think Moses was real, I still have some academic journal logins so looked and couldn’t find anything. Even a cursory google showed nothing except that there is no evidence to confirm there existence, but that there plausibility to Moses. Genuinely curious. Especially as some scholars (minority) debate that Jesus even existed, and the Romans were excellent record keepers and there is no trace of the census that the bible says Mary and Joseph were travelling back for at the time of Jesus’s birth. Obviously jospehus and tacitus reference him and his brother so that’s enough proof for the studies of the historical Jesus. But from my reading (whilst at work today) studies of other biblical figures can’t confirm their historicity in the same way.

so scholars attest that as the Hebrew bible references Noah and Abraham those too are historical?

this subject always sticks in my mind because there was students at university who claimed there was more evidence of Jesus and Muhammad, which there fundamentally isn’t because there are scores of non Islamic sources confirming his existence

No.

It's always struck me as rather dodgy that nearly everyone on earth was pure evil - in what way? - and one descendent of Seth, just the one and his missus and their sons and the sons wives, are good enough to be saved.

@SababaToo I know you don't believe this stuff because you're not a bible liberalist but surely you can see that in the way you're interpreting it - whilst obviously not believing it - you're sort of falling into the trap of not seeing it as contradictory but easily explained. You say that we can take from this part of Genesis that while Adam isn't the first male human he is the first man. What does that mean? Should we assume that there are female humans as well or is Eve the first female human and the first woman? I'm guessing that we need to assume that humankind is both male and female otherwise Eve is going to have to give birth to a shed load of babies. If we assume that, then what is different about these males and females and Adam and Eve?

Ultimately I think trying to make sense of things like the creation myth and the whole species/kind thing is pointless because in order for any of it to make sense you have to accept that it's contradictory, pretend that it isn't, make up lots of reasons that it absolutely is true and have blind faith. Instead, if we accept that it's just another set of myths and stories shaped into another religion this one monotheistic unlike most of the early myths and that it's just a way of trying to make sense of the world we don't have to tie ourselves in the same knots as literalists or fundamentalists.

they aren't all the same kind of writing. Just like a James Patterson novel, a self help book, and a set of knitting instructions aren't the same.

But if you went into a library you wouldn't find them in the same section, never mind bound together in the same book, with a single title, and a man telling you that yes, this is all a history.

Its more interesting what people do and don't remember about things

Yes... especially in a discussion in which the reliability of information from oral history is highly relevant!

Most of the evidence for King David was in the Bible, I believe there is some rather recent archeological evidence that seems to support his existence.

However - there don't necessarily need to be historical sources outside the Bible for scholars to think something it talks about was real. The Bible, like other ancient texts, is itself a historical source.

Non-historians seem to get confused about this a lot for some reason. Many of the things we know about the ancient world have only one or two contemporary records, and actually quite a few have no contemporary records at all, the information was only recorded some time later.

The Bible is to a large degree the Hebrew's history of their people, and that's how scholars treat it.

Edit: Oh, as far as Moses, sure, there are scholars who think he was real.

I mean, it's not actually random.

The Bible is a collection of many different kinds of books written at very different times. Some are poetry, some are mythological, some belong to types of literature like prophetic literature, some are more historical (although they don't use modern historical forms.)

There's also a whole history of their production, compilation, and usage within the religious community. They are all used as sacred authoritative texts, but they aren't all the same kind of writing. Just like a James Patterson novel, a self help book, and a set of knitting instructions aren't the same.

The text seems very clear that everything on land was wiped out.
Start at Genesis 6 and continue to chapter 7 and beyond. It's a horrific story, fortunately completely and utterly incredible.

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206&version=NIV

This thread has blown my mind. I've just lost a good friend to religion recently and i didn't think too many of him existed these days but seems i'm wrong!

Anyone interested in the bible being literally true should read Numbers 22:21-33 which has a talking donkey (well an ass)

It's a great character anyway because it's basically saying to Balaam "you're beating me? What did I ever do to you?" and I can't read it now without seeing it as Donkey from Shrek 😁

So... I may not be descended from Adam & Eve, but from the first humans then and I'm not affected by 'original sin'. That changes everything. I'm surprised no Christian has spotted that and why they are all so sure Adam & Eve were the first for that matter.

It does make me wonder why god had to create eve out of Adam's rib and didn't just fetch one of the many other women.

And why the word 'woman' had to be invented for her as though she was the first.

As for kinds if you want him to have take 2 birds and 2 donkeys and a pair of elephants and have them breed all the other species from them then you must believe in evolution and you must believe it's been millions of years since the Flood.

What utter silly bollocks

We had an au pair who was a young Earth creationist. I tried to avoid religious discussions, but I did ask how did Noah fit all animals on the ark? The 400,000 species of beetles alone would have weighed 32 tons. She rolled her eyes and said “it was a miracle, of course!”

God spoke directly to Noah, you would think he would have mentioned that the earth is vast and that there were animals far and wide to be saved. It's all well and good passing off these things in the Bible as 'faith stories' or metaphors when people realise the stories are ridiculous. Where do you draw the line? It's all a nonsense.

I don't take it literally and I'm.agnostic but I guessing the people of the time didn't know about Australia or the animals there as they couldn't have explored that far on foot.

I remember being told in RE ( Catholic school) that the the eye of a needle as in in its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than a rich man To get into heaven actually referred to the very narrow streets which were called needle, s my memory is hazy ,rather than an actual needle.

So how did the non-domesticated ones survive? And how did Noah get the kangaroos from Australia (for example)?

It's a MYTH.