I think our proven track record is, we would crucify Him.

Ah, I forgot that, sorry. But... is it? Well, I'm not Christian (or should I?), so I don't know, and can't claim that Jesus is a God. I can't say that he is a God, or just human. Because I don't know. I can't prove that he is a God, but I can't also prove that he is not a God. So... my stand now is... that We never kill a God.

How is Bibi responsible for any of this? What did he do?

And why is Israel a "radical project"? Where should middle-eastern Jews live?

And what "cycle of violence" are you talking about? There is no cycle. Nobody believes that Jews would ever attack Arabs.

Do you even know any of Bibi's policies?

No. I think he lived before the alphabet was invented.

However, lots of flood stories from the region do exist, written in Sumerian and Akkadian in cuniform (syllable script).

It was folk lore that was told among descendants of Noah's tribe and finally written down by Moses 3300 years ago. At least that is a version that agrees both with historical facts as we know them and Jewish tradition. It's the version that makes sense to me.

No.

I'll leave it to you to figure out the difference between a growing fetus and an amputee.

I don't understand your point. But covering all the land with water is doable depending on much land it is. Covering all the land between the mountains in Mesopotamia is certainly possible given the two gigantic rivers flowing through there.

The Catholic Church never claimed that the world was flat. The Church insisted on the (Greek) Ptolemaic view that the earth was round and the centre of the universe.

You are confusing the joke about the flat earth with the conflict between the Church who insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe and the Galilean crowd who proved that the sun was the centre of the universe (actually the solar system).

Please do not treat parodies as facts.

I don't know how to flood a "flat earth". A "flat earth" has nothing to do with Noah's story. The word "earth" as in "the planet" does not appear in the story. I explained how it came up after translations into other languages. The original Hebrew text says "land", not "earth, the planet". The Latin translations speak of "terra", which means "land", not "earth". Where are you getting "earth"?

There is not much to say about it. Noah according to the story brought two to fourteen head of each animal of the land onto the ark. Assuming that the people there bred cattle and sheep and a few goats the total number of animals wouldn't have been that spectacular.

Since Mesopotamia is not in the middle of the ocean building the actual (huge) boat cannot have been that difficult. There wouldn't have been any waves.

It was still a tremendous task but nothing a Mesopotamian tribal lord couldn't have done. The Sumerians and Akkadians built huge trading vessels to travel on the river system for hundreds of years before Noah's time. Noah just build a particular big private boat.

Try imagining a farmer family with all their animals and you get a clearer idea of how big the boat would have to be. It's big, but it's doable.

Ararat is the mountains, not the land that was flooded. It doesn't speak of "mountains" that were covered, it speaks of hills. "harim" means both "mountains" and "hills", but there are no mountains in the riverland.

You are confusing Ararat (where Noah lands) with the land that was flooded (where Noah started). Ararat wasn't flooded, Mesopotamia was. And Mesopotamia is strictly the land around the rivers, not the surrounding mountains.

(How do I know that? Because the alternative is physically impossible and completely unnecessary for the story. I don't see much sense in adding assumptions to the story that make it impossible.)

Propaganda all over the place about this issue. Read and watch some Norman Finklestein for starters. Long ago I used to believe whatever side I'm always on is righteous and the other side was full of crap. I then discovered modern democratic propaganda (read Edward Bernays' Propaganda for some good insights) and realized how we are all manipulated via daily programming that turns complex problems into simple "they hate us because of our freedoms" or "the other side is a bunch of nutjobs" etc. This is used in warfare, left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, etc. and with the Palestinian issue. The truth is out there - and it's rarely in the form of Kool-Aid offered to us peons. The cool thing is almost all of it is just a Google search away - just need to use the old noggin to sift through the bullcrap, misinformation, and outright crap to find the gems.

One thing about Noah's age and all time spans given before Exodus:

I have no idea how the Akkadians measured time and distance and whether those words translate exactly into Hebrew. It is quite possible that Moses wrote down the stories using Hebrew cognates of the original Akkadian words but which really meant a different thing by then.

For example, if you assume that the Hebrews counted years and the Akkadians counted months (which they might have done, I don't know), and you therefor divide every Akkadian number appearing in the Bible (i.e. those used before Exodus) by 12, you get very realistic numbers for almost everything.

(Akkadians = Semitic Mesopotamians and ancestors of the Hebrews. Biblical Hebrew shows an Akkadian substrate.)

I guess it's up to you whether you want to believe in anybody's claim that they are prophets. But I have heard of literally dozens modern prophets including more serious ones like the Mormon prophet or the guy who founded the Bahaii religion and some weird sect leaders like "Reverend" Moon and "David Koresh".

There are always prophets around, but whether they were sent by G-d or not I cannot tell.

You mean, why does He not show Himself to you.

Maybe others have seen Him. I wouldn't know. I have never seen Him either. But I can feel His presence, if maybe only Saturdays, given that I am not very religious or spiritual.

(dupe)

You're entitled to your opinion what is necessary or not, but the story is what it is.   Genesis 7 is the Biblical account of it.  I would further point out that not just every living thing that walked the earth died, but every BIRD.   How would local flooding in a region kill every bird?   Like I said, if you want to write your own account of the Flood, have at it, but it's not the Bible's.

P.S.  Also, the Hebrew is not just "harim", it's "Kal-H'Hariym".   That's coming straight from the Masoretic text.   The Hebrew specifically qualifies the hariym as not just itty bitty hills, but high ones.

Genesis 7  ¹⁸ The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. ¹⁹ They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ²⁰ The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. ²¹ Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. ²² Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. ²³ Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

I am simply read the Genesis text here. I did not "write [my] own account of the flood". I am sorry if the Bible does not tell the story you want it to tell.

You seem to assume that whatever people read into the story must be the true intent of the story. I just read the words.

How did the birds die? They probably didn't. They just went away. If you flood a big enough land, birds will fly to the mountains and those that don't will eventually die of exhaustion if they cannot land anywhere. 

Kal-HaHarim simply means "all the mountains/hills". (There is no "iy" (as in two Yuds) in the word either.)

You have to understand that there are no "high mountains" in the land in question, assuming "high" is read as "as tall as the mountains of Kurdistan". A "high mountain" in the flat land surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates is _not that high_. Can you understand that?

Why do you insist that the story must be read in a way that is physically impossible? Harim can be read as big mountains and as small mounts. Why choose the one that is physically impossible and then claim that the story doesn't make sense.

The harim gavahim mentioned cannot have been particularly high, since they were located in the land and the land was flat. You can verify this using Google Earth if you want. The _high_ mountaisn (in the Alps sense of high mountains) are further away from the rivers and certainly were not flooded (and neither were they part of the land Noah lived in).

If somebody told me they jumped very high yesterday, I could read that as "jumped a few metres high" or "jumped over a house high". But I wouldn't choose the latter and then claim that he must have been lying about jumping high. And neither would I accuse anyone correcting my false assumption of inventing his own story about the event.

I think everyone has a choice to how he or she chooses to believe in god. Science tells us god has been falsified by man thus is existence is a mystery or an un-known or assumed variable prior to the big-bang theory.

Religion tells us to choose the right religion to follow the path god wants us to follow. In a way science is the modern religion and science explains a lot about god in a physical sense.

If you go beyond the science then religion tells you god created the universe but science also asks who created god, and who created the person who created god etc etc etc. 

Science can't neglect the existence of god and religion cant neglect science to explaining his existence. Its both super natural and science. The quest to answering the existence of god is too complex because we can't even explain why we exist in the first place and why god exists and decided to create the universe.

Science and God- one and the same? Yes there the same thing.

.

@Riddleking :

Science can't neglect the existence of god and religion cant neglect science to explaining his existence. Its both super natural and science. The quest to answering the existence of god is too complex because we can't even explain why we exist in the first place and why god exists and decided to create the universe.

Well, no one know the reason why God decided to create the universe. My logic can't tell why God create the universe. Curiously, if God create the universe, then God doesn't need the universe to exist. So where is God place? Another Dimension, or what? I can only say, well, with my limited and stupid logic and as a human, maybe God create the universe just because God was bored. who know, sometimes we play "the Sims" when we bored too.

But then, if God create the Universe, then who's create God? You know, looking at what Stephen Hawking said that there is always Alpha and Omega (there is always the beginning and the end, I read his book in the 90'ed, I think the title was "the Brief History of Time" and in the introduction chapter, he said that there is the beginning and the end, that's, include the time.) So, if God was the one who start the time, then God must has the beginning of his existence too. Well... this question is crazy... so maybe we should forget it and move on).