Granite on the Bible
- Thread starter Granite
- Start date
- Status
Because the Bible describes places that actually exist does not necessarily mean the EVENTS described took place. The veracity of the events themselves is open to question. As a geography lesson the Bible accurately describes its setting (most of the time; Nazareth probably did not exist during the time of Christ, as an example). The difference between the setting and the event is a big one.
What archeology has not been able to find, however, is fairly significant.
What archeology has not been able to find, however, is fairly significant.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
fool said:
Oh, ok so we are off granite's comparison of the mormon book vs. Scriptures already? Gee, that was fast. Musta been that comment about places not being found anywhere else but in the book of mormon...
They also recently used Homer's work to locate Ithaca. Should prove Homer got some stuff historically accurate. As for locating the gods on Mt Olympus, I don't think that discovery has been made yet.
noguru
Well-known member
noguru said:
Nineveh said:
I don't think the Greeks who knew thier mythology thought Mt Olympus was located here on earth. It was simply a symbolic place where their dieties dwelt. Much the same as our idea of Heaven. The only difference is you and I don't believe in their dieties or that Mt Olympus really exists. We could be wrong.
noguru said:
Nineveh said:
Well the rivers for the Garden Eden are specified. And as far as I know they are still there. Are you claiming that a global flood did not wipe out these water channels? But we still cannot locate where the Garden of Eden was.
This location is also considered by historians to be the origins of the ancient Hebrews.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
noguru said:
Mt Olympus
No, I'm not claiming the flood didn't wipe out everything, I'm not even sure why you would ask. I think the earth was vasty changed in that catastrophic event.
The people who came off the ark named rivers and towns names they were familiar with. Sort of like we do today.. York, New York.
What location? Eden? Surely not. Abram was called from Ur of the Chaldees.
noguru
Well-known member
Nineveh said:
Nothing here falsifies the point I was making.
Nineveh said:
Oh I see. And the place where the Euphrates and Tigris meet is not the same place referred to in Genesis? Hmmm. :think:
Nineveh said:
Where does it say that in the Bible?
If that were the case wouldn't they have called it New Tigris, and New Euphrates?
So the people who named Lebanon Ct, were familiar with Lebanon?
Nineveh said:
And this is not near where the Tigris and Euphrates meet?
Ur
Euphrates
What puzzles me, is that if the flood in the Bible was a global flood and not a local flood, why did Abram end up so close to where the Garden of Eden might be, if these rivers are in the same place as in Genesis?
Last edited:
Nineveh
Merely Christian
noguru said:
A picture of Mt Olympus doesn't even make you consider you could be wrong about believing:
"I don't think the Greeks who knew thier mythology thought Mt Olympus was located here on earth. It was simply a symbolic place where their dieties dwelt. Much the same as our idea of Heaven. The only difference is you and I don't believe in their dieties or that Mt Olympus really exists. We could be wrong."
Why should that be the only place on earth the flood didn't affect?
Are you purposely missing the point?
Anyway, aren't you a couple rivers short for your belief system?
Of course Ur. But it appeared you meant Eden. That's why I asked.
Maybe that's because you assume that theses are the rivers spoken of in Eden instead of Noah and those that followed naming the rivers.
If it was a local flood, why did Noah and his sons spend hundreds of years building an ark? Surely in that amount of time they could have moved far far away and back again.
noguru
Well-known member
Nineveh said:
Olympus does not look inhabitable. Perhaps it was just a symbol to the Greeks?
Nineveh said:
So far, I have seen no evidence for a global flood, and this supports my idea. Your idea rest on the assumption that there was a global flood, which I do not accept, yet.
Nineveh said:
No. Are you?
Nineveh said:
Perhaps you believe that because your elevator doesn't go to the top floor.
Nineveh said:
Perhaps your not seeing the logic here. My view of history is supported by the fact that Ur, Euphrates, Tigris, and the original land of the Hebrews are found near each other.
Your model rests squarely on your unBiblical assumption that Noah and his family named two rivers with the same name as the place where his ancestor came from. You are claiming that the Euphrates and Tigris spoken of in Genesis are not the in the same place currently. You see my ideas are based on sound reasoning. Yours are based on wild and unBiblical assumptions.
- Status