5- To Millertime who said ..."The truth should come out from yourself, once you have thought deeply on whatever matters you are concerned with."... I have to respectfully disagree. If everyone followed their own personal truths (which unfortunetaly too often happens)... well, I'll let you think about that a little longer, I'm not really sure it deserves to much attention.
Forgive me, I have a tendency to use unclear language. I don't think you got my point. Allow me to clarify with an example.
'John Doe believes that stealing is wrong. He believes this because the Bible says stealing is wrong.'
John doesn't really (or at least, shouldn't really) believe this just because a book says so. He should believe this because it is apparent that stealing breaks down the bonds of trust in human society (or whatever reason), and (to use the right words) he
agrees with the Bible. To summarize, the Bible (and any other text) can only proclaim moral law, they often don't provide the logical justification for it, and we as humans have to figure out and understand that part ourselves (or perhaps reject it on equally valid grounds). Does this make more sense?
ice is the only solid that floats in it's liquid form. Except maybe dry ice. but i have never seen the solid form of dry ice. what we use is the liquid form of CO2.
Actually, the liquid form of CO2 is very difficult to procure, much less utilize on Earth, the atmospheric pressure conditions aren't right for its formation at any temperature. And fyi dry ice sinks in water.
No i just have no belief.
If some people
need to make a fire out of my words then, don't blame me.
I just stated my position and belief.
(emphasis mine)
Is it just me or did you just contradict yourself?
While we're talking about the flood, I'd like to add some food for thought (and I have no sources or anything, this is just me). If we are trying to take a literal approach to the flood story, we would have to take it from the perspective of the author, who would have lived thousands of years ago in the Middle East. First, let me establish location. While in modern times, we understand that the world is a large sphere with 7 continents, back then they didn't know of the full extent of the world. Also, the word 'world' is probably only a rough translation (since it is an ancient language), so it could possibly (and probably) just mean something non-descriptive, like 'the land'. After the flood story, the Bible begins to tell of Abraham. It says that he initially lived in a town called Ur. Now there are many town called Ur, but they are all located around Mesopotamia. Assuming that he is descended from people on the ark, it makes sense that the people moved radially outwards from the ark's "landing place", so Noah and his ark would not have been far from the same area. So, with this in mind, by 'the world', they were probably only referring to the Middle East, particularly the region where
modern day Iraq is. Now, is there a possibility for a biblical "world-wide flood", one which would prevent existence on the ground? Certainly. This particular area is at a very low altitude, around 1-50 meters above sea level, and more importantly, it is surrounded by two large rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. When the story is told people often get the idea of an ocean, miles deep, just forming over the globe. But if the only criterion is that the flood would wipe out existence on the ground, it would only have to be 2 or 3 feet deep at minimum, that would have been sufficient to destroy all their buildings and wipe out their crops. The overflowing of the Tigris and the Euphrates could easily have provided this level of destruction, and possibly much, much more. So with all this in mind, it isn't too far-fetched to think that a small portion of Mesopotamia flooded, and that a man built a boat for his family and someone made a story about it afterwards.
GalCiv2 Forums
Stardock Forums