Ooparts & Ancient High Tech--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

[Susma Rio Sep]

I forgot to add:

Although it is obvious to me that childbearing and childrearing is a very noble and essential destiny of womanhood at present; nonetheless, if you women want to be on equal footing with men, here is my suggestion of a strategy:

First, you have to free yourself of your physiological burden, the nobility of your childbearing and childrearing destiny notwithstanding.

The possibilities of modern medicine are the answer to that objective.

Otherwise you would always be loaded down with your monthly inconvenience and the risk of an unwanted pregnancy burden and all the attendant troubles -- if troubles they be to you.

Next, develop martial arts and work on the mental skills of logic and mathematics, and take a strong hold of your emotions.

If you follow these simple directives, you will be more equal than men in everything that men now excel in and rule over you. Like you will be also you best hairdressers, fashion gurus, cooks, and pianists. And even better sopranos than those eunuchized sopranos in the Sistine Chapel. (Are they still around?)

Good luck or God be with you.

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

whkeith, you haven't offended me. i'm just picking you up on what appears to be an incorrect assumption. certainly no reason to consider leaving the boards!!

the clearest of the verses I had in mind was Genesis 19:6 - 8. Lot, remember, was the one RIGHTEOUS man in God's eyes in Sodom.

when abraham argues the toss with G!D he doesn't mention lot specifically - in fact, he only beats G!D down to *ten* people. the tradition does not, in fact regard lot as "righteous" at all. there is one interpretation that says, however, that despite being less plugged into hesed (compassion) than abraham, he nonetheless tried to follow in his footsteps. the text states also that he "sat in the gate" of sodom, which always signifies a position of civic responsibility. similarly, his offer of hospitality is modelled upon abraham's own (genesis 18:2), but instead of emulating abraham truly, he bakes them *matzah*. why does it say what he bakes? because you bake matzah because it doesn't need to rise, ie, if you're in a hurry, as the israelites were when leaving egypt. in other words, he was trying to get them out of his house before anyone noticed he was being hospitable. then he compounds this shortcoming by the disgusting offer of his daughters - sodomite civic responsibility indeed! but there is nothing to suggest that G!D approved of this act - in fact, one might think that the messengers' offer to sleep in the street suggests that they were aware of lot's weakness and offered him a way out. however, he does try - and he is rewarded for this by being allowed to escape. however, the family's confused sense of morals continues to surface, notably later when his daughters sleep with him - this suggests he didn't teach them very well!

The law for dealing with captured women is set forth in Deuteronomy 21:10 - 14. True, it says "have her as thy wife," but it's remarkably easy to dispose of her afterward if he "takes no delight in her."

well, firstly, this is only applicable to women of a specifically 'enemy nation', captured in an *optional* war in the land of israel, not women in general. so it can't be adduced as evidence of misogyny - especially considering that the men in this case would be killed in battle or made captive; the woman, by contrast, can be freed in order to be married. the sages also explain that the reason the man will end up "taking no delight" is because he got this wife by taking her prisoner in a war, instead of by more proper means. the clear aim is to stigmatise this kind of conduct by jewish soldiers. nonetheless, she is protected as a wife and although you can divorce her and send her away, you can't rescind her status and start treating her as a captive again. this is a big difference from "remarkably easy to dispose of her" - in fact the text makes it *harder* by mandating her status as a wife and, effectively, imposes the obligations of a regular divorce which, in jewish law, are pretty stringent.

One of the clearest statements is in Deuteronomy 25:11 - 12, where a woman will have her hand cut off if she tried to help her husband in a fight by grabbing the genitals of his enemy. "Thine eye shall not pity her."

but the sages interpret this to be a *monetary fine*, just as they do with almost everything else, based upon textual support from an earlier verse. what this is saying is that women are not *exempt* from this punishment for improper behaviour. it is also connected to the Torah's position on public shaming, which is considered as bad as murder.

The overall poor treatment of women is evident throughout.

this is a general statement which cannot be sustained by any of the examples you have offered so far when we consider the traditional interpretations, as opposed to the literalist translated version.

I should not have suggested that God directly supported such attitudes and practices.

for us, if something is in the Torah as a law, that means G!D mandates it. it is up to us to work out why - if we're interpreting it correctly.

For me, today, these verses demonstrate only that these passages were written by men who were part of a particular cultural mindset, one that deemed women to be a step above slaves

if this was the case, why are women allowed to inherit property (the daughters of zelophechad), become religious leaders (the prophetesses) and why are they permitted to make contracts, engage in business, or live independently? women are not even obliged to marry or reproduce under jewish law - only men are. furthermore, the laws of divorce are particularly organised so as to allow the woman more latitude on grounds than the man - she can, for example, divorce him for bad breath, unattractive smells and so on, not having a decent job, sexual non-satisfaction and many other things which he can't divorce her for in turn. i dare say you can object that the biblical israelites were less sophisticated than the rabbis, but the point is that they also get punished a lot worse when they screw up. the "cultural mindset" argument assumes that human society improves over time, which is hardly an unarguable point, in addition to being completely self-serving and relying upon being able to dismiss older cultures as being backward. in much the same way, the british thought that indians were less sophisticated than they were. hmmmmmmm...

my faith, which demanded that I accept every word of both the Old Testament and the New as absolutely the revealed Word of God, as valid for today as it was then.

well, leaving aside the NT for the moment, as it's not a jewish sacred text, the point is not that this statement is incorrect, but that it ignores the fact that "every word" includes the *oral Law as well*, which is what allows us to get beyond the literalist dead-end.

I should open a thread on the "Society and Politics" board about Jacques Chirac's recent backing for a bill preventing the use of Muslim headscarves - and other religious paraphanelia - from public buildings in France.

don't get me started on *that* lying, corrupt, racist hypocrite and his political system. how he can make out that the US is anti-muslim and then pass something like this is just fecking typical. grrrrr.

First, you have to free yourself of your physiological burden, the nobility of your childbearing and childrearing destiny notwithstanding.

The possibilities of modern medicine are the answer to that objective.

Otherwise you would always be loaded down with your monthly inconvenience and the risk of an unwanted pregnancy burden and all the attendant troubles -- if troubles they be to you.

wow, you seem pretty keen on women altering their natural cycles using chemistry. i know plenty of women that regard that as rather invasive.

Next, develop martial arts and work on the mental skills of logic and mathematics, and take a strong hold of your emotions.

blimey, that does rather assume that women have a problem with this and that the solution is for them to be "more like men". i don't know how popular that would be with women that don't conform to these stereotypes.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

What is the name of that American general who said that his God, the Christian one, is greater or something to that effect than the one of Muslims like the Talibans, the bin Ladenites, and similar types?

Both his God and that of Omar Mullah and bin Laden are biblical Gods.

Now, listen to this: mine is the most transcendent, above all ancient texts and contemporary ones like that of Joseph Smith.

My God is above them all.

No, I am not crazy; but they are benighted, the American general and his adversarial ilks, they have tunnel syndrome in their acquaintance of God.

Susma Rio Sep

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by s8int

Do ancient unexplained artifacts and high technology potentially provide evidence of pre-flood civilizations?

Do 800 Billion fossils of all types in the Karoo Bone yards provide additional evidence of a worldwide flood? Does the Bible mention dinosaurs? Is there an easy explanation for fitting dinosaurs on the ark? Is there a reason that scientists cannot do on purpose in the lab what they claim happened by accident? Is evolution the worst theory ever to fit known facts?--


Hello! Is there an unmistakable Message (from God) in the cells of every living thing?

YES!

[ADMIN EDIT by I, Brian - link removed]

I am not familiar with unexplained artifacts of high technology. The flood legends is based upon the flooding which happened on all continents during the Holocene Wet period. Babylon and the area around the Dead Sea have evidence of local flooding during this period. In 4000 BCE the area of the Sinai flooded and destroyed a settlement of people who lived underground. (The Nephilm who live in the earth no doubt.) These events were made into stories and legends and placed in the constellations centering around Argo.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, just various localized floodings misused by creationist to claim a world wide flood. The absurdity of the Noah's Ark story far outweighs any theory science has to offer.

Evolution fits the facts very nicely. Science was created self replicating proteins and RNA in the laboratory. They have created primitive life. Virius' are seen to mutate and evolve into different strains in the laboratory. Because they evolve, you have to get a new flu vaccine every year.

Vestigal organs are best explained by evolution. Anyone claiming "intelligent design" from the palmaris longus, levator claviculae, latissimo condyloideus, small psoas, acrimio-basilar muscle, sternalis muscle, rectus muscle, or azygous lobe has never done the research and are just "aping" creationists.

[Vajradhara]

ah...

i had thought that this was the case, but i was not sure... i think, however, the evidence speaks for itself.

to which, i simply have to say... DNFTT (do not feed the troll).

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Nogodnomasters

Vestigal organs are best explained by evolution. Anyone claiming "intelligent design" from the palmaris longus, levator claviculae, latissimo condyloideus, small psoas, acrimio-basilar muscle, sternalis muscle, rectus muscle, or azygous lobe has never done the research and are just "aping" creationists.

"Intelligent Design" as a general concept has nothing against Evolution as part of a dynamic process. However, Creationism has seen fit to hijack the term "Intelligent Design" and imply it is a static 'one moment creates all' sort of idea, which is a gross mis-representation on an otherwise respectable part of metaphysical philosophy.

Btw - do you have a reference for the "Holocene wet period"? Sounds interesting.

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

"Intelligent Design" as a general concept has nothing against Evolution as part of a dynamic process. However, Creationism has seen fit to hijack the term "Intelligent Design" and imply it is a static 'one moment creates all' sort of idea, which is a gross mis-representation on an otherwise respectable part of metaphysical philosophy.

Btw - do you have a reference for the "Holocene wet period"? Sounds interesting.

I typed it into my search engine and got 545 pages of hits for "Holocene Wet Period".

[I, Brian]

Ah, yes - went to Google - it's just the 3000 BC period. I thought it was going to be something earlier.

I'm not sure that there is a consensus that there was a sudden wet period - my reading has been that there was an implicit climate change around 3000 BC that saw a lot of the Middle East dry up - not least the Sahara, which had otherwise been grassy plains until then.

Important point about the climate change is that it likely played a founding role in the civilisation of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Certainly there have been period floods at specific geographical locations. Trying to tie them all into a global event is likely imitating the Genesis model too closely. Periodic rare major floods over the world makes much more sense than a single event of which there is no evidence.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Namaste all.

Please forgive my ignorance.

I have always had the impression that the debate shrill at that against evolution is a peculiarly American phenomenon from generally Biblical literalist Christians.

Please, tell me, the more knowledgeable and learned people in this website, do you encounter such heated-up opposition against evolution from other Christians around the world, like in Europe and in South America or in Westernized Africa. Let me know, for my personal enlightenment. Give me the Internet references.

Susma Rio Sep

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ah, yes - went to Google - it's just the 3000 BC period. I thought it was going to be something earlier.

I'm not sure that there is a consensus that there was a sudden wet period - my reading has been that there was an implicit climate change around 3000 BC that saw a lot of the Middle East dry up - not least the Sahara, which had otherwise been grassy plains until then.

Important point about the climate change is that it likely played a founding role in the civilisation of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Certainly there have been period floods at specific geographical locations. Trying to tie them all into a global event is likely imitating the Genesis model too closely. Periodic rare major floods over the world makes much more sense than a single event of which there is no evidence.

I concur Brian. When I isolated the original text of Noah, there was no mention of a world wide flood, and no Mt. Ararat either. I have conclude the world wide aspect was added later. I will say that the "local flooding" should not be taken lightly. These were severe floods.


Israel's Mt. Sedom is a salt formation and changes in precipitation on the mountain can be measured by observing the width of caves formed by salt dissolution. The cave widths can in turn be compared with glacial advances (bigger caves = more rain = more glaciers) and with sea levels of the Dead Sea. Mount Sedom, otherwise known as Mt. Sodom, said to be the site of the famous biblical event -- is a salt formation bordering on the Dead Sea. Recent studies by Amos Nur at Stanford University suggest that the area was affected by an earthquake in 3100 BCE. This seems to correspond with the biblical event. Changes in precipitation on the mountain can be measured by observing the width of caves formed by salt dissolution. The cave widths can in turn be compared with glacial advances (bigger caves = more rain = more glaciers) and with sea levels of the Dead Sea. The Wide caves on the face of the "mountain" located some 300 feet above the present sea level indicate an extremely wet period a millennium before this. Oak twigs and driftwood found in the caves must have been transported by floodwaters from some other part of the shore many miles away since oak trees do not grow in salt. Evidently the water level was some 300 feet higher at this time, implying heavy flooding on the Jordan River and lower evaporation rates due to cooler weather. No other event in the last ten thousand years matches this. The oak twigs have been dated by radiocarbon technique at 4350 + or - 75 RCYBP. In the Negev Desert large underground sites were uncovered where a group of people lived in the Chalcolithic (copper) age. They lived underground. They made copper weapons. Ashes indicate they were at war with some of the local tribes. In 4200 B.C.E. they were forced out of their underground dwellings because they were living in a flood plane. The Bible claims “giants” or “Nefeel” lived underground. The Hebrew word “nefeel,” also translates as “bully” or “tyrant.” “Rapha” is the word normally used in the Bible for “giant.” “Nefeel” is a rare word used only twice in the Bible. The word “tyrant” is a better translation than “giant” as these men “became mighty” and “renown.”

[Susma Rio Sep]

The Bible claims “giants” or “Nefeel” lived underground. The Hebrew word “nefeel,” also translates as “bully” or “tyrant.” “Rapha” is the word normally used in the Bible for “giant.” “Nefeel” is a rare word used only twice in the Bible. The word “tyrant” is a better translation than “giant” as these men “became mighty” and “renown.

Even though Christians want to take the Bible seriously; nonetheless, as their apologists remind us continuously, God speaks in the Bible the way men speak.

On this account, there are countless tall stories and urban legends in the Bible. You have to read everything with a sack of salt.


Susma Rio Sep