Originally posted by Setekh
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. The ease with which someone can fabricate a completely unacreditted website far exceeds the same process to create a book.
True, but most people would be able to distinguish between the looney toons sites and those with credability. And having the means and ability to write a book is no reflection on its authenticity. If theres doubts about a websites credability, check up on it, if you can find nothing to back up what it says then treat it with sceptisim, but distrusting all websites because its easy to make a fake one is ridiculous.
And I challenge you to continue to dig up that huge amount. As for the city at Cambay, I don't see how that contravenes the Bible's version of history. Not to be definitive, but it sounds awfully like it would fit into where the Flood occurred (which is undated in the Bible, but for the fact that it precedes the patriarchs).
Ok, first of all the bible is quite detailed in not only giving a direct line of ancestry from Adam to Jesus but also a lot of lifespans too. So while the time of the flood is undated, its easy enough to get an approximate time. I have a timeline of history here sent to me by an american aunt which traces the history of the world back to Adam and while I cannot say whether whats in it is in the bible or not, its certainly seems to be well researched. Certainly its trying to make the history of the world fit into what the bible portrays it as.
Firstly theres 50 generations between Jesus and Noah. Not all the names have specific dates attached to births etc, but for the most part they seemed to have lived average lifespans (bar a few including Abraham, who apparently had his son Isaac at the age of 100 with his sister
). If we allow the same length of time from father to son for every decendant of Jesus we come up with a nice round fgure of 5000 years. This would put the date of the flood at roughly 7,000 bc, 2,500 years after the city in the gulf of cambay was submerged. The book itself gives the date of the flood at 2348bc, with a number of other suggested dates going as high as 3246bc. So no, it doesnt really fit with the description given by the bible. Its possible that the bible describes another flood, or that the timeline in the bible is wrong, but that opens up other questions.
Secondly the time before the bible is well documented, even better than after. Theres ten generations between Noah and Adam, and while all the people mentioned seem too have lived ridiculously long lives (Adam himself was 930 at the time of the deluge, Gen v.5) ten generations is not a lot of people when you consider that the first generation consisted of 2 people. How reasonable is it to suggest that a ten mile square city could have been constructed in that time, which not only was built thousands of miles away from the supposed site of the garden of eden but was unremarkable enough to earn no mention in the bible.
Either way it doesnt fit.
As for other evidence, you've got to be kidding me. Wtf are dinosaurs?
btw Seketh, I'm not an aethist, but I don't like stuff that doesnt add up.
